77 ITR 237 (Ker), CIT vs. Bharat General Reinsurance Co. Ltd. (1971) 81 ITR 303 (Del), CIT v. Archana R. Dhanwatey

136 ITR 355High Court1982#1456 most cited

What is 77 ITR 237 (Ker), CIT vs. Bharat General Reinsurance Co. Ltd. (1971) 81 ITR 303 (Del), CIT v. Archana R. Dhanwatey authority for?

Tax authorities are mandated to correctly determine the legitimate taxable income according to the law, and no tax can be levied or collected unless explicitly permitted by statute, irrespective of the assessee's admissions or acquiescence. The appellate authority should adjudicate additional claims to ensure the correct tax liability is arrived at.

78

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Archana R. Dhanwatey · 136 ITR 355 · additional claims · appeal · CIT(A) adjudication · duty of tax authorities · correct taxable income determination · no estoppel against statute · admission not conclusive · legitimate tax collection · Article 265 · authority of law

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 132(4)Section 147Section 37(1)Section 133(6)Section 69ASection 153CSection 2(47)(v)

Issues it is cited on

gaarsection 80j(6a)section 65(b)section 181section 194qsection 2(47)(v)section 193annual valuesection 65b(4)annual letting valuesection 158bb(1)joint development agreement

Judgments citing 77 ITR 237 (Ker), CIT vs. Bharat General Reinsurance Co. Ltd. (1971) 81 ITR 303 (Del), CIT v. Archana R. Dhanwatey

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S VESTIGE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

ITA 7842/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarabefore Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarasatbeer Singh Godara & Satbeer Singh Godara & And & Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra, , , Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel and Shri Pranav Yadav, Advocate
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

…20 (SC) " National Thermal Power Limited v. CIT: 229 ITR 383 (SC) 21 ITA-5515/Del/2025 & 13 others " Assam Company (India) Ltd. vs. CIT: 256 ITR 423 (Gauhati) " Nathmal Bankatlal Parikh & Co. V. CIT: 122 ITR 168 (AP FB) " CIT V. Smt. Archana R. Dhanswatay: 136 ITR 355 (Bom) " Chokshi Metal Refinery Vs CIT: 107 ITR 63 (Guj.) " Circular No. 14 (XL-35), dated 11.4.1955 The aforesaid decisions, it will be kindly appreciated, make it amply clear that the purpose of the assessment is to correctly determine the taxable income of the assessee in accordance with the provisions of the Act. (b) Admission relevant, but no…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S VESTIGE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

ITA 7841/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

…vs. Mahalaxmi Sugar Mills Co. Ltd: 160 ITR 920 (SC) National Thermal Power Limited v. CIT: 229 ITR 383 (SC) Assam Company (India) Ltd. vs. CIT: 256 ITR 423 (Gauhati) Nathmal Bankatlal Parikh & Co. V. CIT: 122 ITR 168 (AP FB) CIT V. Smt. Archana R. Dhanswatay: 136 ITR 355 (Bom) Chokshi Metal Refinery Vs CIT: 107 ITR 63 (Guj.) Circular No. 14 (XL-35), dated 11.4.1955 The aforesaid decisions, it will be kindly appreciated, make it amply clear that the purpose of the assessment is to correctly determine the taxable income of the assessee in accordance with the provisions of the Act. (b) Admission relevant, but not co…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S VESTIGE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

ITA 7840/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarabefore Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarasatbeer Singh Godara & Satbeer Singh Godara & And & Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra, , , Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel and Shri Pranav Yadav, Advocate
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

…20 (SC) " National Thermal Power Limited v. CIT: 229 ITR 383 (SC) 21 ITA-5515/Del/2025 & 13 others " Assam Company (India) Ltd. vs. CIT: 256 ITR 423 (Gauhati) " Nathmal Bankatlal Parikh & Co. V. CIT: 122 ITR 168 (AP FB) " CIT V. Smt. Archana R. Dhanswatay: 136 ITR 355 (Bom) " Chokshi Metal Refinery Vs CIT: 107 ITR 63 (Guj.) " Circular No. 14 (XL-35), dated 11.4.1955 The aforesaid decisions, it will be kindly appreciated, make it amply clear that the purpose of the assessment is to correctly determine the taxable income of the assessee in accordance with the provisions of the Act. (b) Admission relevant, but no…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S VESTIGE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

ITA 7838/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel andFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

…vs. Mahalaxmi Sugar Mills Co. Ltd: 160 ITR 920 (SC) National Thermal Power Limited v. CIT: 229 ITR 383 (SC) Assam Company (India) Ltd. vs. CIT: 256 ITR 423 (Gauhati) Nathmal Bankatlal Parikh & Co. V. CIT: 122 ITR 168 (AP FB) CIT V. Smt. Archana R. Dhanswatay: 136 ITR 355 (Bom) Chokshi Metal Refinery Vs CIT: 107 ITR 63 (Guj.) Circular No. 14 (XL-35), dated 11.4.1955 The aforesaid decisions, it will be kindly appreciated, make it amply clear that the purpose of the assessment is to correctly determine the taxable income of the assessee in accordance with the provisions of the Act. (b) Admission relevant, but not co…

VESTIGE MARKETING PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -05 , DELHI

ITA 5521/DEL/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarabefore Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarasatbeer Singh Godara & Satbeer Singh Godara & And & Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra, , , Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel and Shri Pranav Yadav, Advocate
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

…20 (SC) " National Thermal Power Limited v. CIT: 229 ITR 383 (SC) 21 ITA-5515/Del/2025 & 13 others " Assam Company (India) Ltd. vs. CIT: 256 ITR 423 (Gauhati) " Nathmal Bankatlal Parikh & Co. V. CIT: 122 ITR 168 (AP FB) " CIT V. Smt. Archana R. Dhanswatay: 136 ITR 355 (Bom) " Chokshi Metal Refinery Vs CIT: 107 ITR 63 (Guj.) " Circular No. 14 (XL-35), dated 11.4.1955 The aforesaid decisions, it will be kindly appreciated, make it amply clear that the purpose of the assessment is to correctly determine the taxable income of the assessee in accordance with the provisions of the Act. (b) Admission relevant, but no…

VESTIGE MARKETING PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-05, DELHI

ITA 5520/DEL/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

…vs. Mahalaxmi Sugar Mills Co. Ltd: 160 ITR 920 (SC) National Thermal Power Limited v. CIT: 229 ITR 383 (SC) Assam Company (India) Ltd. vs. CIT: 256 ITR 423 (Gauhati) Nathmal Bankatlal Parikh & Co. V. CIT: 122 ITR 168 (AP FB) CIT V. Smt. Archana R. Dhanswatay: 136 ITR 355 (Bom) Chokshi Metal Refinery Vs CIT: 107 ITR 63 (Guj.) Circular No. 14 (XL-35), dated 11.4.1955 The aforesaid decisions, it will be kindly appreciated, make it amply clear that the purpose of the assessment is to correctly determine the taxable income of the assessee in accordance with the provisions of the Act. (b) Admission relevant, but not co…

VESTIGE MARKETING PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-05, DELHI

ITA 5517/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

…vs. Mahalaxmi Sugar Mills Co. Ltd: 160 ITR 920 (SC) National Thermal Power Limited v. CIT: 229 ITR 383 (SC) Assam Company (India) Ltd. vs. CIT: 256 ITR 423 (Gauhati) Nathmal Bankatlal Parikh & Co. V. CIT: 122 ITR 168 (AP FB) CIT V. Smt. Archana R. Dhanswatay: 136 ITR 355 (Bom) Chokshi Metal Refinery Vs CIT: 107 ITR 63 (Guj.) Circular No. 14 (XL-35), dated 11.4.1955 The aforesaid decisions, it will be kindly appreciated, make it amply clear that the purpose of the assessment is to correctly determine the taxable income of the assessee in accordance with the provisions of the Act. (b) Admission relevant, but not co…

VESTIGE MARKETING PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 05, DELHI

ITA 5515/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel andFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

…vs. Mahalaxmi Sugar Mills Co. Ltd: 160 ITR 920 (SC) National Thermal Power Limited v. CIT: 229 ITR 383 (SC) Assam Company (India) Ltd. vs. CIT: 256 ITR 423 (Gauhati) Nathmal Bankatlal Parikh & Co. V. CIT: 122 ITR 168 (AP FB) CIT V. Smt. Archana R. Dhanswatay: 136 ITR 355 (Bom) Chokshi Metal Refinery Vs CIT: 107 ITR 63 (Guj.) Circular No. 14 (XL-35), dated 11.4.1955 The aforesaid decisions, it will be kindly appreciated, make it amply clear that the purpose of the assessment is to correctly determine the taxable income of the assessee in accordance with the provisions of the Act. (b) Admission relevant, but not co…

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)

…t him and ensure that only legitimate taxes due are collected (see S.R. Kosti v. CIT [2005] 276 ITR 165 (Guj.), CPA Yoosuf v. ITO[1970] 77 ITR 237 (Ker.), CIT v. Bharat General Reinsurance Co. Ltd. [1971] 81 ITR 303 (Delhi), CIT v. Archana R. Dhanwatey [1982] 136 ITR 355 (Bom.). 32.If particular levy is not permitted under the Act, tax cannot be levied applying the doctrine of estoppel. (See Dy. CST v. Sreeni Printers [1987] 67 SCC 279. This Court in the case of Nirmala L. Mehta v. A. Balasubramaniam, CIT [2004] 269 ITR 1 has held that there cannot be any estoppel against the statute. Article 265 of the Constitut…

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)

…t him and ensure that only legitimate taxes due are collected (see S.R. Kosti v. CIT [2005] 276 ITR 165 (Guj.), CPA Yoosuf v. ITO[1970] 77 ITR 237 (Ker.), CIT v. Bharat General Reinsurance Co. Ltd. [1971] 81 ITR 303 (Delhi), CIT v. Archana R. Dhanwatey [1982] 136 ITR 355 (Bom.). 32.If particular levy is not permitted under the Act, tax cannot be levied applying the doctrine of estoppel. (See Dy. CST v. Sreeni Printers [1987] 67 SCC 279. This Court in the case of Nirmala L. Mehta v. A. Balasubramaniam, CIT [2004] 269 ITR 1 has held that there cannot be any estoppel against the statute. Article 265 of the Constitut…

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)

…t him and ensure that only legitimate taxes due are collected (see S.R. Kosti v. CIT [2005] 276 ITR 165 (Guj.), CPA Yoosuf v. ITO[1970] 77 ITR 237 (Ker.), CIT v. Bharat General Reinsurance Co. Ltd. [1971] 81 ITR 303 (Delhi), CIT v. Archana R. Dhanwatey [1982] 136 ITR 355 (Bom.). 32.If particular levy is not permitted under the Act, tax cannot be levied applying the doctrine of estoppel. (See Dy. CST v. Sreeni Printers [1987] 67 SCC 279. This Court in the case of Nirmala L. Mehta v. A. Balasubramaniam, CIT [2004] 269 ITR 1 has held that there cannot be any estoppel against the statute. Article 265 of the Constitut…

DCIT, CC-2(1), BENGALURU, 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)

…t him and ensure that only legitimate taxes due are collected (see S.R. Kosti v. CIT [2005] 276 ITR 165 (Guj.), CPA Yoosuf v. ITO[1970] 77 ITR 237 (Ker.), CIT v. Bharat General Reinsurance Co. Ltd. [1971] 81 ITR 303 (Delhi), CIT v. Archana R. Dhanwatey [1982] 136 ITR 355 (Bom.). 32.If particular levy is not permitted under the Act, tax cannot be levied applying the doctrine of estoppel. (See Dy. CST v. Sreeni Printers [1987] 67 SCC 279. This Court in the case of Nirmala L. Mehta v. A. Balasubramaniam, CIT [2004] 269 ITR 1 has held that there cannot be any estoppel against the statute. Article 265 of the Constitut…

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)

…t him and ensure that only legitimate taxes due are collected (see S.R. Kosti v. CIT [2005] 276 ITR 165 (Guj.), CPA Yoosuf v. ITO[1970] 77 ITR 237 (Ker.), CIT v. Bharat General Reinsurance Co. Ltd. [1971] 81 ITR 303 (Delhi), CIT v. Archana R. Dhanwatey [1982] 136 ITR 355 (Bom.). 32.If particular levy is not permitted under the Act, tax cannot be levied applying the doctrine of estoppel. (See Dy. CST v. Sreeni Printers [1987] 67 SCC 279. This Court in the case of Nirmala L. Mehta v. A. Balasubramaniam, CIT [2004] 269 ITR 1 has held that there cannot be any estoppel against the statute. Article 265 of the Constitut…

VOLARK LEASING IFSC PVT. LTD,GUJARAT vs. ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE, GANDHINAGAR, GUJARAT, GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 357/AHD/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Oct 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Smt. Annapurna Gupta

For Appellant: Shri Pancham Sethi, ARFor Respondent: Date of Hearing
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 234BSection 250Section 80Section 80JSection 80L

…essed as per provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961 in spite of higher income incorrectly declared by the assessee in the return of income. This view was fortified by the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Smt. Archana R. Dhanwatey [1981] 136 ITR 355/[1981] 7 Taxman 121, wherein it was held that "under the I.T. Act, 1961, the authorities are obliged to act in accordance with law. Tax has to be collected as per the provision of the Act. If an assessee, under a mistake, misconceptions or on being not properly instructed is over assessed, the concerned authority under the Act is obliged, require…

JCIT(OSD), CC-1, LKO, LUCKNOW vs. ACP TOLLWAYS PRIVATE LIMITED, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed and the Cross\nObjection filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 131/LKW/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow17 Oct 2025AY 2021-22
Section 143(2)Section 32

…ions e.g. Koshti vs. CIT (2005) 193 CTR (Guj) 518\n: (2005) 276 ITR 165 (Guj), C.P.A. Yoosuf vs. ITO (1970) 77 ITR 237\n(Ker.), CIT vs. Bharat General Reinsurance Co. Ltd. (1971) 81 ITR 303\n(Del), CIT vs. Archana R. Dhanwatey (1981) 24 CTR (Bom) 142: (1982)\n136 ITR 355 (Bom)\n12. Thus, the Tribunal at Pune has not only considered the decision of\nthe Hon'ble Mumbai High Court in the case of Northern Karnataka\nExpressway Ltd, but has also considered the decision of the Coordinate\nBench at Mumbai in the case of West Gujarat Expressway Ltd to allow\nthe alternate claim of the assessee to hold that the asset as a…

AJAY JAISINGHANI ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 972/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI. NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA (Accountant Member), MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora, Shri Pranay GandhiFor Respondent: DR. K. R. Subhash (CIT-DR)
Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 250Section 55(2)(aa)Section 55(2)(ac)

…ve been adjudicated by the ld. CIT(A). a. Jute Corpn. Of India Ltd. [(1991) 187 ITR 688 (SC)] b. Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. [(1993) 199 ITR 351 (Bombay HC Full Bench)] c. Nirmala L. Mehta [(2004) 269 ITR 1 (Bombay HC)] d. Smt. Archana R. Dhanwatey [(1982) 136 ITR 355 (Bombay HC)]. 8. The ld. DR on the other hand controverted the said fact and stated that when the assessee is not aggrieved by the 143(1) intimation, there remains no subject matter/dispute for further adjudication before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. DR further stated that the assessee can raise the additional claim only by way of revised returns and…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SHYAM SUNDER JINDAL, NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5671/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 127Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250(6)

…laxmi Sugar Mills Co. Ltd: 160 ITR 920 (SC)  National Thermal Power Limited v. CIT: 229 ITR 383 (SC)  Assam Company (India) Ltd. vs. CIT: 256 ITR 423 (Gauhati)  Nathmal Bankatlal Parikh & Co. V. CIT: 122 ITR 168 (AP FB)  CIT V. Smt. Archana R. Dhanswatay: 136 ITR 355 (Bom)  Chokshi Metal Refinery Vs CIT: 107 ITR 63 (Guj.)  Circular No. 14 (XL-35), dated 11.4.1955 43. The aforesaid decisions, it will be kindly appreciated, make it amply clear that the purpose of the assessment is to correctly determine the taxable income of the assessee in accordance with the provisions of the Act. (b) Admission relevant, bu…

INDACO JEANS PRIVATE LIMITED,GOREGOAN EAST vs. WARD 6(3)(2), AAYAKRBHAVAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee vide

ITA 80/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

For Appellant: Ashwin ChhagFor Respondent: H.M. Bhatt
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…d to assist him and ensure that only legitimate taxes due are collected (see S.R. Kosti v CIT (Guj) (2005) 276 ITR 165, C.P.A. Yoosuf v. I.T.O. (1970) 77 ITR 237, CIT v. Bharat General Reinsurance Co. Ltd, (1971) 81 ITR 303, CIT vs. Archana R. Dhanwate (1982) 136 ITR 355 (Bom). 32. If particular levy is not permitted under the Act, tax cannot be levied applying the doctrine of estoppel. (See Dy. Commissioner of Sales Tax vs. Sreeni Printers (1987) 67 SCC 279.” Further on the issue of delay in filing the appeal. The decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vedabai @ Vaijayanatabai Baburao Patil vs Shanta…

INDACO JEANS PRIVATE LIMITED,GOREGAON EAST vs. I.T.O 6(3)(2), AAYAKAR BHAVAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee vide

ITA 79/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

For Appellant: Ashwin ChhagFor Respondent: H.M. Bhatt
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…d to assist him and ensure that only legitimate taxes due are collected (see S.R. Kosti v CIT (Guj) (2005) 276 ITR 165, C.P.A. Yoosuf v. I.T.O. (1970) 77 ITR 237, CIT v. Bharat General Reinsurance Co. Ltd, (1971) 81 ITR 303, CIT vs. Archana R. Dhanwate (1982) 136 ITR 355 (Bom). 32. If particular levy is not permitted under the Act, tax cannot be levied applying the doctrine of estoppel. (See Dy. Commissioner of Sales Tax vs. Sreeni Printers (1987) 67 SCC 279.” Further on the issue of delay in filing the appeal. The decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vedabai @ Vaijayanatabai Baburao Patil vs Shanta…

ACIT SPECIAL RANGE-3, NEW DELHI vs. DELHI TOURISM & TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, Appeal filed by the Department in ITA No

ITA 5922/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Sept 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI N. K. BILLAIYA (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘B’: NEW DELHI BEFORE, SHRI N. K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER Delhi Tourism & Addl.CIT Transportation Special Range-3 Development Corporation New Delhi Ltd. 18-A, DDA, SCO Vs. Complex Defence Colony New Delhi- 110 024 PAN-AAACD 0169J (Appellant) (Respondent) Addl.CIT M/s Delhi Tourism & Special Range-3 Transportation New Delhi Development Corporation Vs. Ltd. 18-A, DDA, SCO Complex Defence Colony New Delhi- 110 024 PAN-AAACD 0169J (Appellant) (Respondent) Addl.CIT M/s Delhi Tourism & Special Range-3 Transportation New…

Showing 1–20 of 78 · Page 1 of 4