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

ITO 8(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Lionbridge Technologies P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai

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

ITA 1375/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. A.D. Jainand Sh. N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: S/Sh. Ajay Vohra. Sr.Advocate & N.K. Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Sh. N.K.Chand, CIT(DR) & Jitendra Yadav

…f provision of software 11 ITA No.668(Asr)/2014 development services, as is being sought for. In this regard, reliance is sought to be placed on the following case laws: i) “CIT vs. C.Parakh & Co. (India ) Ltd.”, 29 ITR 661 (SC) ii) “CIT vs. V.M.R.P. Firm”, 56 ITR 67 (SC) iii) “National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. vs. CIT”, 229 ITR 383(SC) iv) “CIT vs. Enron Expat Services Ind.”, 327 ITR 626 (Uttrakhand) v) “R.B.Jessa Ram Fateh Chand vs. CIT”, 81 ITR 409 (All.) vi) “Pandit Seho Nath Prasad Sharma vs. CIT”, 66 ITR 647 (Del.) vii) “CIT vs. Bharat General Reinsurance Co. Ltd. ”, 81 ITR 303 (Del). viii) “DCIT vs. Quark…

DCIT Cen Cir 9, Mumbai vs. Tribhovandas Bhimji Zaveri (Delhi) P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year

ITA 2861/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Amarjit Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.2250 & 2251/Mum/2013 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2010-11) M/S Tribhovandas Bhimji बनाम/ Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle 9, Zaveri (Delhi) Pvt.Ltd., Vs. Room No.806, Ground Floor, Old C G O Annexe Bldg, Somnath Apartments, M K Road, Marine Lines, Ram Mandir Road, Mumbai-400020 Vile Parle (E), Mumbai-400057 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 69

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, म ुंबई न्यायपीठ “ई” म ुंबई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE S/SHRI B.R.BASKARAN, AM AND AMARJIT SINGH, JM आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.2250 and 2251/Mum/2013 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year: 2009-10 and 2010-11) M/s Tribhovandas Bhimji बनाम/ Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 9, Zaveri (Delhi) Pvt.Ltd., Vs. Room No.806, Ground Floor, Old C G O Annexe Bldg, Somnath Apartments, M K Road, Marine Lines, Ram Mandir Road, Mumbai-400020 Vile Parle (E), Mumbai-400057 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.2860 and 2861/Mum/2013…

DCIT Cen Cir 9, Mumbai vs. Tribhovandas Bhimji Zaveri (Delhi) P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year

ITA 2860/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Amarjit Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.2250 & 2251/Mum/2013 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2010-11) M/S Tribhovandas Bhimji बनाम/ Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle 9, Zaveri (Delhi) Pvt.Ltd., Vs. Room No.806, Ground Floor, Old C G O Annexe Bldg, Somnath Apartments, M K Road, Marine Lines, Ram Mandir Road, Mumbai-400020 Vile Parle (E), Mumbai-400057 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 69

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, म ुंबई न्यायपीठ “ई” म ुंबई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE S/SHRI B.R.BASKARAN, AM AND AMARJIT SINGH, JM आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.2250 and 2251/Mum/2013 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year: 2009-10 and 2010-11) M/s Tribhovandas Bhimji बनाम/ Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 9, Zaveri (Delhi) Pvt.Ltd., Vs. Room No.806, Ground Floor, Old C G O Annexe Bldg, Somnath Apartments, M K Road, Marine Lines, Ram Mandir Road, Mumbai-400020 Vile Parle (E), Mumbai-400057 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.2860 and 2861/Mum/2013…

Tribhuvandas Bhimji Zaveri (Delhi ) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 9, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year

ITA 2251/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Amarjit Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.2250 & 2251/Mum/2013 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2010-11) M/S Tribhovandas Bhimji बनाम/ Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle 9, Zaveri (Delhi) Pvt.Ltd., Vs. Room No.806, Ground Floor, Old C G O Annexe Bldg, Somnath Apartments, M K Road, Marine Lines, Ram Mandir Road, Mumbai-400020 Vile Parle (E), Mumbai-400057 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 69

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, म ुंबई न्यायपीठ “ई” म ुंबई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE S/SHRI B.R.BASKARAN, AM AND AMARJIT SINGH, JM आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.2250 and 2251/Mum/2013 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year: 2009-10 and 2010-11) M/s Tribhovandas Bhimji बनाम/ Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 9, Zaveri (Delhi) Pvt.Ltd., Vs. Room No.806, Ground Floor, Old C G O Annexe Bldg, Somnath Apartments, M K Road, Marine Lines, Ram Mandir Road, Mumbai-400020 Vile Parle (E), Mumbai-400057 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.2860 and 2861/Mum/2013…

Tribhuvandas Bhimji Zaveri (Delhi ) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 9, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year

ITA 2250/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Amarjit Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.2250 & 2251/Mum/2013 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2010-11) M/S Tribhovandas Bhimji बनाम/ Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle 9, Zaveri (Delhi) Pvt.Ltd., Vs. Room No.806, Ground Floor, Old C G O Annexe Bldg, Somnath Apartments, M K Road, Marine Lines, Ram Mandir Road, Mumbai-400020 Vile Parle (E), Mumbai-400057 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 69

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, म ुंबई न्यायपीठ “ई” म ुंबई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE S/SHRI B.R.BASKARAN, AM AND AMARJIT SINGH, JM आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.2250 and 2251/Mum/2013 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year: 2009-10 and 2010-11) M/s Tribhovandas Bhimji बनाम/ Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 9, Zaveri (Delhi) Pvt.Ltd., Vs. Room No.806, Ground Floor, Old C G O Annexe Bldg, Somnath Apartments, M K Road, Marine Lines, Ram Mandir Road, Mumbai-400020 Vile Parle (E), Mumbai-400057 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.2860 and 2861/Mum/2013…

Mukul Rohatgi, New Delhi vs. JCIT, New Delhi

The appeal is allowed

ITA 998/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Oct 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri Laxmi Prashad Sahu Assessment Year: 2008-09 Mukul Rohatgi, Vs. Jcit, 59- Sunder Nagar, Range-37, New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aacpr4789B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri P.C. Yadav, Adv. Respondent By: Shri P.Damkanunjna, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 19 .08.2015 Date Of Pronouncement: 14:10.2015 Order Per I.C. Sudhir:The Assessee Has Questioned First Appellate Order Mainly On The Following Grounds (Revised) : 1. That The Order Of The Learned Cit(Appeals) Is Bad In Law & On Facts: 2. That The Learned Cit(Appeals) Has Erred In Confirming The Assessment Of The Income Of The Assessee At Rs.18.63,90,250 As Against The Returned Income Of Rs.18,54,95,430/-/ 3. That Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Cit(Appeals) Has Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Rs.1,18,675 Out Of The Interest Expenses Incurred On Borrowed Funds Pertaining To Higher Purchase Of Car.

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Yadav, AdvFor Respondent: Shri P.Damkanunjna, Sr. DR
Section 14A

…tute and if an income is not taxable under the four corners of income-tax law, the same cannot be made taxable because of the mistake of the assessee. In support, he cited the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. V.MR.P.FIR – reported in 56 ITR 67 (S.C) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to record their observation that the doctrine of “approbate & reprobate” is only a species of estoppels, it applies only to the conduct of parties. As in the case of estoppels, it cannot operate against the provisions of a statute. If a particular income is not taxable under the I.T. Act,…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sam Global Securities Ltd

The appeal is dismissed

ITA/214/2013HC Delhi02 Sept 2013
Section 10Section 10(33)Section 139(5)Section 143(2)(ii)Section 254Section 73

…wed under Section 139(5) of the Act, but had only filed a revised computation. 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…