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#1449 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 366,005 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

Addi. CIT Spl. 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 5920/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Sept 2023AY 2011-12

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…

Delhi Tourism & Transportation Development Corporation Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-10(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 5509/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Sept 2023AY 2011-12

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…

Delhi Tourism Transportation and Development Corporation Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl.CIT, Special Range-3, New Delhi

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

ITA 5167/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

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…

Addl.CIT, Special Range-3, New Delhi vs. Delhi Tourism Transportation and Development Corporation Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 4737/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

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…

Addl.CIT, Special Range-3, New Delhi vs. Delhi Tourism Transportation and Development Corporation Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 4100/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

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…

Addl.CIT, Special Range-3, New Delhi vs. Delhi Tourism Transportation and Development Corporation Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 184/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

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…

Gayatri Commercial Premises Co-Op Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. CPC/ITO.22(1)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 114/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.114/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2019-20) Gayatri Commercial Premises बिधम/ Cpc/Ito, 22 (1)(4) Co-Op, Society Ltd. 3Rd Floor, Piramal Chambers Vs. Unit No. 102/103, Behind Lalbaugh Mumbai- 400034 Mittal Ind. Estate Andheri Kurla Andheri (East) Mumbai- 400059 स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaag5064D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri. N.R. Agarwal Revenue By: Shri. Krishna Kumar, (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 15/03/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/05/2023 आदेश/Order Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac Dated 13-12-2022 For Ay 2019-20 Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 93,20,286/-. 2. The Assessee Society Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal Reads As Under: - “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.93,20,286/- As A Business Income In Order Passed U/S 143(1) & 154 Of The Act By Cpc. 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Not Granting Deduction Under Mutuality Principal.” 3. The Regarding Ground No. 1, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Ground Of Appeal Of The Assessee By Observing As Under: - “The Ld. Cit(A) Has Rejected The Assessees’S The Ground Of Appeal By Observing At Para No. 7 Of The Impugned Order As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri. N.R. AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri. Krishna Kumar, (Sr. AR)
Section 143(1)

…be levied or collected except by authority of law” and drew our attention to the following case laws:- a).Nirmala L. Mehta v/s A. Balsubramaniam CIT 269 ITR 1 (Bom) 4 A.Y. 2019-20 Gayatri Commercial Premises Co-Op Society Ltd. b).CIT v/s Archana R Dhanwatey 136 ITR 355 (Bom) c). Wipro Ltd v/s DCIT 382 ITR 179 (Karn) d).Smt Snehlata Jain v/s CIT 192 CTR 50 (J&K) e). TATA INDUSTRIES LTD vs. ITO dated 20th July, 2016,181 TTJ 0600 (Mumbai) Hon'ble bench has held in para 30 of the order as under:- 6. According to the Ld. AR, the assessee itself has offered disallowance in the return of income more than the exempt i…

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

…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. 33. 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 Con…

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

…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. 33. 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 Con…

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

…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. 33. 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 Con…

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)

…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.). ITA Nos.542 to 544/Bang/2021 & CO Nos.17 to 19/Bang/2021 Sri Mathikere Ramaiah Seetharam, Bangalore Page 81 of 96 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. 33. This Court in the case of Nirmala L. Mehta v. A. Balasubr…

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)

…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.). ITA Nos.542 to 544/Bang/2021 & CO Nos.17 to 19/Bang/2021 Sri Mathikere Ramaiah Seetharam, Bangalore Page 81 of 96 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. 33. This Court in the case of Nirmala L. Mehta v. A. Balasubr…

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)

…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.). ITA Nos.542 to 544/Bang/2021 & CO Nos.17 to 19/Bang/2021 Sri Mathikere Ramaiah Seetharam, Bangalore Page 81 of 96 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. 33. This Court in the case of Nirmala L. Mehta v. A. Balasubr…

ITO-15(2)(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Pravir Polymers Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 2595/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Income Tax Officer-15(2)(4), M/S Pravir Polymers Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 360, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. 601/602, Delta, Central Avenue, Road, Marine Lines, Vs. Technology Street, Hiranandani Mumbai-400020. Garden Powai, Mumbai-400076. Pan No. Aaacp 4621 K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivram, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. C.T. Mathews, DR
Section 114Section 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 153C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “C” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Income Tax Officer-15(2)(4), M/s Pravir Polymers Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 360, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. 601/602, Delta, Central Avenue, Road, Marine Lines, Vs. Technology Street, Hiranandani Mumbai-400020. Garden Powai, Mumbai-400076. PAN No. AAACP 4621 K Appellant Respondent CO No. 103/MUM/2021 (ITA No. 2595/MUM/2019) Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/s Pravir Polymers Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax Officer-15(2)(4), 601/602, Delta, Central Avenue, Room No. 360, Aa…

Hero Motocrop Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 11(1), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 9187/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Apr 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2015-16

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144CSection 145ASection 80ISection 92C

…05 ITR 212 (SC) Anchor Pressings (P) Ltd. vs. CIT and Ors.: 161 ITR 159 (SC) CIT v Bharat General Reinsurance: 81 ITR 303 (Del) CIT vs. Hiranand: 136 Taxman 66 (Raj) CIT v. Ahmedabad Keiser-e-Hind Mills Co. Ltd.: 128 ITR 486 (Guj.) CIT v Archana R. Dhanwatay: 136 ITR 355 (Bom.) Sneh Lata Jain vs. CIT: 140 Taxman 156 (J&K) PCIT v. Oracle (OFSS) BPO Services Ltd.:[2019] 102 taxmann.com 396 (Del.) CIT v. Bharat Aluminium Co Ltd: 303 ITR 256 (Del) CIT v. Ramco International : 332 ITR 306 (P&H) Hero Motocorp Ltd. vs. ACIT Raghavan Nair vs. ACIT: 304 CTR 96 (Ker) JCIT v. Hero Honda Finlease Ltd.: 115 TTJ 752 (Third Me…

Jiten Bhavanji Vora, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC- 7(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 6670/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2020AY 2016-17
Section 132Section 271A

…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. 33. This Court in the case of Nirmala L. Mehta v. A. Balasubramaniam, CIT [2004] 269 ITR l(Bom)(HC) has held that there cannot be any estoppel against the statute. Article 265 of…

Naresh J. Kotak, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 6(4), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 4635/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Nov 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Ramlal Negiआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 4635-4637 & 4641/Mum/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: (2006-2007 To 2009-10) Shri Naresh J. Kotak, D.C.I.T., C/O. Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp, Vs. Central Circle-6(4), Esplanade House, 2Nd Floor, 29, (Formerly A.C.I.T., Hazarimal Somani Marg, Fort, Central Circle 39) Mumbai-400001. Mumbai.

For Respondent: Lakshmi Vara Prasad Gode
Section 143(3)Section 153A

…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. 33. 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 Const…

Sri Srinivasa Educational & Charitable Trust, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(1), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue and all the cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 709/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan, Vice Presidnet & Shri B.R Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri Prashanth G.S, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Pramod Kumar Singh, CIT (DR)
Section 11Section 11(2)(b)Section 11(5)Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)Section 132(4)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDNET AND SHRI B.R BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SN ITA No. Asst. Appellant Respondent Year 1 709/Bang/2018 2010- Sri Srinivasa The Asst. 11 Educational & Commissioner Charitable Trust, of Income-tax, No.619/G, 2ndBlock,. Central Circle 36th Cross, -2(1) Rajajinagar, 2nd Block, Bengaluru. Bengaluru-560 010 2 710/Bang/2018 2011- “ “ 12 3 711/Bang/2018 2012- “ “ 13 4 712/Bang/2018 2013- “ “ 14 5 1142//Bang/2018 2008- The Dy. Sri Srinivasa 09 Commissioner of Educational & Income-tax, Charitable Central Circle-2(1) Tr…

Mokama Munger Highway Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2146/HYD/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Jul 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri D.V. AnjaneyuluFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai, (CIT) DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

…ITA Nos 1729 2145 and 2146 of 2018 Mokama Munger Highway Ltd Hyderabad. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘ B ‘ Bench, Hyderabad Before Smt. P. Madhavi Devi, Judicial Member AND Shri S.Rifaur Rahman, Accountant Member ITA Nos.1729, 2145 & 2146/Hyd/2018 (Assessment Years: 2013-14 to 2015-16) M/s. Mokama Munger Vs Asstt. Commissioner of Highway Ltd Hyderabad Income Tax, Circle 16(2) PAN: AAGCM5878F Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri D.V. Anjaneyulu For Revenue : Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai, (CIT) DR Date of Hearing: 16.04.2019 Date of Pronouncement: 03.07.2019 O R D E R Per Smt. P.…

Mokama Munger Highway Limited, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-16(4), Hyderabad

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2145/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Jul 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri D.V. AnjaneyuluFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai, (CIT) DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

…ITA Nos 1729 2145 and 2146 of 2018 Mokama Munger Highway Ltd Hyderabad. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘ B ‘ Bench, Hyderabad Before Smt. P. Madhavi Devi, Judicial Member AND Shri S.Rifaur Rahman, Accountant Member ITA Nos.1729, 2145 & 2146/Hyd/2018 (Assessment Years: 2013-14 to 2015-16) M/s. Mokama Munger Vs Asstt. Commissioner of Highway Ltd Hyderabad Income Tax, Circle 16(2) PAN: AAGCM5878F Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri D.V. Anjaneyulu For Revenue : Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai, (CIT) DR Date of Hearing: 16.04.2019 Date of Pronouncement: 03.07.2019 O R D E R Per Smt. P.…