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

Mokama Munger Highway Limited, Hyderabad vs. Asst. 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 1729/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Jul 2019AY 2013-14

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.…

Si Group India Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Ltu, Mumbai

ITA 1745/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jun 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am M/S. Si Group India Limited Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Plot No.D-2/1, Ttc Income Tax, Industrial Area, Ltu, Mumbai Thane-Belapur Road Opp. Juinagar Railway Station Navi Mumbai – 400 705 Pan/Gir No.Aaach7323L (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Si Group India Limited Income Tax, Plot No.D-2/1, Ttc Industrial Centre-1, 29Th Floor Area, World Trade Centre Thane-Belapur Road Cuffe Parade, Opp. Juinagar Railway Station Mumbai-400 005 Navi Mumbai – 400 705 Pan/Gir No.Aaach7323L (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ajit Kumar Jain & Shri Siddhesh Chaugule Revenue By Shri Manoj Kumar Singh Date Of Hearing 17/05/2019 Date Of Pronouncement 19/06/2019

Section 143(3)

…aw made by an assessee or his authorized representative during the course of any proceedings is not binding. He placed reliance on the following decisions in this regard:-  Rani Anand Kunwar vs CIT (1940) 8 ITR 126 (Oudh)  CIT vs Archana R. Dhanwatay (1982) 136 ITR 355 (Bom) (HC)  Gouri Sahai Ghisa Ram vs CIT (1979) 120 ITR 338 (All.) (HC)  Narsepalli Oil Mills vs State of Mysore (1973) 32 STC 599 (Mad.)  Central Council for Research in Ayurveda & Siddha vs Dr. K. Shankara Kumari (2001) 5 SSC 60  CIT vs Mahalaxmi Sugar Miils Co. Ltd (1986) 160 ITR 920 (SC) at (928) 5.3.1. We are inclined to accept this arg…

Mdlr Estates Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-14, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the respective assessees are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 8215/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jun 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. R. K. Panda & Sh. Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2008-09

Section 142Section 144Section 153ASection 264

…d. 160 ITR 920 (SC) 2. CIT Vs. Bharat General Reinsurance Ltd. Co. 81 ITR 303 (Del) 3. Vijay Gupta Vs. CIT 386 ITR 643 (Del) 4. DIT (E) Vs. Ahay G. Piramal Foundation 52 taxmann.com 226 (Del) 5. CIT Vidarbha and Marathwada Vs. Smt. Archana R. Dhanwatay 136 ITR 355 (Bom) 6. Nirmala L. Mehta Vs. A. Balasubramaniam 269 ITR 1 (Bom) 17. Referring to the following decisions he submitted that reconstitution of firm does not result into invocation of section 45 (4) :- 1. CIT Vs. P. N. panjawani 356 ITR 676 (Karnataka) 2. DCIT Vs. G. K.Enterprises 79 TTJ 82 (Mad) 18. Referring to the following decisions he subm…

Mdlr Builders P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-14, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the respective assessees are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 8214/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jun 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. R. K. Panda & Sh. Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2008-09

Section 142Section 144Section 153ASection 264

…d. 160 ITR 920 (SC) 2. CIT Vs. Bharat General Reinsurance Ltd. Co. 81 ITR 303 (Del) 3. Vijay Gupta Vs. CIT 386 ITR 643 (Del) 4. DIT (E) Vs. Ahay G. Piramal Foundation 52 taxmann.com 226 (Del) 5. CIT Vidarbha and Marathwada Vs. Smt. Archana R. Dhanwatay 136 ITR 355 (Bom) 6. Nirmala L. Mehta Vs. A. Balasubramaniam 269 ITR 1 (Bom) 17. Referring to the following decisions he submitted that reconstitution of firm does not result into invocation of section 45 (4) :- 1. CIT Vs. P. N. panjawani 356 ITR 676 (Karnataka) 2. DCIT Vs. G. K.Enterprises 79 TTJ 82 (Mad) 18. Referring to the following decisions he subm…

Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Hisar

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

ITA 893/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Saini & Sh. N. S. Sainiita No. 893/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Jindal Centre, 12, Bhikaji Cama Income Tax, Hisar Circle, Place, New Delhi-110066 Hisar (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacj7079D Assessee By : Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv., Sh. Sumit Lal Chandani, Adv., Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. & Ms. Pallavi Saigal, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Sanjay I. Bara, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing :05.03.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.04.2019 Order Per N. S. Saini: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Assessing Officer U/S 143(3)/144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 29.10.2018 For Assessment Years 2013-14

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay I. Bara, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 80Section 80I

…lar (Circular no. 14(XL- 35) of 1955), the Assessing Officer is duty bound to apply relevant provisions of the Act in order to arrive at the true figure of the assessee’s taxable income. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Archana R. Dhanwatay 136 ITR 355[Pg. 297 to 300 of PB-1] upheld the order of the Tribunal wherein it was held by the Tribunal that it was the duty of the ITO to consider whether the assessee was entitled to deduction, even when it was not claimed by the assessee. Similar observation was made by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Bharat General Reinsurance Co. Ltd…

Valecha Badwani Sendhwa Tollways Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 11, Mumbai

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by assessee are allowed

ITA 2848/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Apr 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Pawan Singhvalecha Badwani Sendhwa Pcit-11 Tollways Ltd. 4Th Floor, R.No. 417, Aayakar Bhavan, Valecha Chambers, Andheri M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. New Link Road, Andheri (W), Vs. Mumbai-400053. Pan: Aadcv6105B Appellant Respondent Valecha Lm Tools Pvt. Ltd. Pcit-11 4Th Floor, Valecha Chambers, R.No. 417, Aayakar Bhavan, Andheri New Link Road, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Andheri (W), Vs. Mumbai-400053. Pan: Aadcv2787M Appellant Respondent : Shri Sumant Chadha With Appellant By Mr. Jitendra Trivedi (Ar) Respondent By : Shri S.K. Poddar (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing : 01.04.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.04.2019

For Respondent: Shri Sumant Chadha with
Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 263Section 32

…has relied upon the various decisions e.g. S.R. Koshti v. CIT [2005] 276 ITR 165/146 Taxman 335 (Guj), C.P.A. Yoosuf v. ITO [1970] 77 ITR 237 (Ker.), CIT v. Bharat General Reinsurance Co. Ltd. [1971] 81 ITR 303 (Delhi), CIT v. Smt. Archana R. Dhanwatey [1982] 136 ITR 355/[1981] 7 Taxman 121 (Bom.). In view of the above discussed factual and legal position, we have no hesitation to hold that the assessee is entitled to put his alternate claim that the deduction allowable to him may be considered as allowable as depreciation treating the ITA No. 2848 & 2849/Mum 2018 -Valecha Badwani Sendhwa Tollways Ltd. & Anr pr…

ITO, W-4, Panchkula vs. Smt. Seema Bishnoi, Panchkula

In the result appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 103/CHANDI/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Feb 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sanjay Gargthe Ito Vs. Smt. Seema Bishnoi Ward-4, Panchkula H.No. 906, Sec-08, Panchkula

For Appellant: Shri. A.K. Jindal, CAFor Respondent: Shri. G.S. Phani Kishore, CI TDR
Section 148Section 54BSection 54F

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH’B’, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI N.K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER The ITO Vs. Smt. Seema Bishnoi Ward-4, Panchkula H.No. 906, Sec-08, Panchkula PAN No. ARUPB5117G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri. A.K. Jindal, CA Department by : Shri. G.S. Phani Kishore, CI TDR Date of hearing : 05/02/2019 Date of Pronouncement : 20/02/2019 O R D E R PER N.K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT : This is an appeal by the Department against the order dt. 22/11/2017 of Ld. CIT(A)-, Panchkula 2. Following grounds have been raised in the present app…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Sinhagad Technical Education Society, Pune

Accordingly, additional ground No.3 by the assessee is allowed

ITA 16/PUN/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Oct 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 2075 To 2077 & 2110/Pun/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2009-10 Sinhgad Technical Education Society, S. No. 44/1, Vadgaon ( Budruk), Off. Sinhagad Road, Pune-411 041. Pan : Aabts9900Q. …....अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

For Appellant: Shri S. N. DoshiFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar
Section 11Section 13(1)(d)Section 143(3)Section 153C

…been applied for charitable purpose but cannot lead to wholesale denial of exemption. In this regard, decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in NASSCOM is relied upon, as also decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court 110 ITR 364 and that of ITAT Mumbai in 136 ITR 355. I do not find any merit in these contentions of the appellant find that the 'decision of the Hon Delhi High Court in the case of NASSCOM has 'no bearing on the issue at hand. The decisions in the other cases cited by the appellant also turned entirely on their own facts On the other hand, in Agappa Child Centre v. CIT [1997] 92 Taxman 327/2261TR…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Sinhagad Technical Education Society, Pune

Accordingly, additional ground No.3 by the assessee is allowed

ITA 17/PUN/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 2075 To 2077 & 2110/Pun/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2009-10 Sinhgad Technical Education Society, S. No. 44/1, Vadgaon ( Budruk), Off. Sinhagad Road, Pune-411 041. Pan : Aabts9900Q. …....अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

For Appellant: Shri S. N. DoshiFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar
Section 11Section 13(1)(d)Section 143(3)Section 153C

…been applied for charitable purpose but cannot lead to wholesale denial of exemption. In this regard, decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in NASSCOM is relied upon, as also decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court 110 ITR 364 and that of ITAT Mumbai in 136 ITR 355. I do not find any merit in these contentions of the appellant find that the 'decision of the Hon Delhi High Court in the case of NASSCOM has 'no bearing on the issue at hand. The decisions in the other cases cited by the appellant also turned entirely on their own facts On the other hand, in Agappa Child Centre v. CIT [1997] 92 Taxman 327/2261TR…

Sinhgad Technical Education Society, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

Accordingly, additional ground No.3 by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2077/PUN/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Oct 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 2075 To 2077 & 2110/Pun/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2009-10 Sinhgad Technical Education Society, S. No. 44/1, Vadgaon ( Budruk), Off. Sinhagad Road, Pune-411 041. Pan : Aabts9900Q. …....अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

For Appellant: Shri S. N. DoshiFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar
Section 11Section 13(1)(d)Section 143(3)Section 153C

…been applied for charitable purpose but cannot lead to wholesale denial of exemption. In this regard, decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in NASSCOM is relied upon, as also decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court 110 ITR 364 and that of ITAT Mumbai in 136 ITR 355. I do not find any merit in these contentions of the appellant find that the 'decision of the Hon Delhi High Court in the case of NASSCOM has 'no bearing on the issue at hand. The decisions in the other cases cited by the appellant also turned entirely on their own facts On the other hand, in Agappa Child Centre v. CIT [1997] 92 Taxman 327/2261TR…

Sinhgad Technical Education Society, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

Accordingly, additional ground No.3 by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2076/PUN/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Oct 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 2075 To 2077 & 2110/Pun/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2009-10 Sinhgad Technical Education Society, S. No. 44/1, Vadgaon ( Budruk), Off. Sinhagad Road, Pune-411 041. Pan : Aabts9900Q. …....अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

For Appellant: Shri S. N. DoshiFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar
Section 11Section 13(1)(d)Section 143(3)Section 153C

…been applied for charitable purpose but cannot lead to wholesale denial of exemption. In this regard, decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in NASSCOM is relied upon, as also decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court 110 ITR 364 and that of ITAT Mumbai in 136 ITR 355. I do not find any merit in these contentions of the appellant find that the 'decision of the Hon Delhi High Court in the case of NASSCOM has 'no bearing on the issue at hand. The decisions in the other cases cited by the appellant also turned entirely on their own facts On the other hand, in Agappa Child Centre v. CIT [1997] 92 Taxman 327/2261TR…

Sinhgad Technical Education Society, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

Accordingly, additional ground No.3 by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2075/PUN/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Oct 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 2075 To 2077 & 2110/Pun/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2009-10 Sinhgad Technical Education Society, S. No. 44/1, Vadgaon ( Budruk), Off. Sinhagad Road, Pune-411 041. Pan : Aabts9900Q. …....अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

For Appellant: Shri S. N. DoshiFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar
Section 11Section 13(1)(d)Section 143(3)Section 153C

…been applied for charitable purpose but cannot lead to wholesale denial of exemption. In this regard, decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in NASSCOM is relied upon, as also decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court 110 ITR 364 and that of ITAT Mumbai in 136 ITR 355. I do not find any merit in these contentions of the appellant find that the 'decision of the Hon Delhi High Court in the case of NASSCOM has 'no bearing on the issue at hand. The decisions in the other cases cited by the appellant also turned entirely on their own facts On the other hand, in Agappa Child Centre v. CIT [1997] 92 Taxman 327/2261TR…

Sinhgad Technical Education Society, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax

Accordingly, additional ground No.3 by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2110/PUN/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 2075 To 2077 & 2110/Pun/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2009-10 Sinhgad Technical Education Society, S. No. 44/1, Vadgaon ( Budruk), Off. Sinhagad Road, Pune-411 041. Pan : Aabts9900Q. …....अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

For Appellant: Shri S. N. DoshiFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar
Section 11Section 13(1)(d)Section 143(3)Section 153C

…been applied for charitable purpose but cannot lead to wholesale denial of exemption. In this regard, decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in NASSCOM is relied upon, as also decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court 110 ITR 364 and that of ITAT Mumbai in 136 ITR 355. I do not find any merit in these contentions of the appellant find that the 'decision of the Hon Delhi High Court in the case of NASSCOM has 'no bearing on the issue at hand. The decisions in the other cases cited by the appellant also turned entirely on their own facts On the other hand, in Agappa Child Centre v. CIT [1997] 92 Taxman 327/2261TR…

M/S Jila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Mandsaur vs. The DCIT, Ratlam

In the result Ground No.1 & 2 raised by the

ITA 386/IND/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore17 Aug 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Jila Sahakari Kendriya Dcit, Ratlam Bank Maryadit, Vs. Mhow-Neemuch Road, Mandsaur (M.P) (Appellant) (Respondent ) Pan No.Aaatj2383F Revenue By Shri Lalchand, Cit Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpande,Ca Date Of Hearing 25.7.2018 Date Of 17.8.2018 Pronouncement

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

…it is found that the assessee is entitled to a particular relief in law. It is obligatory on the part of the AO to draw attention of the assessee to the lawful relief or deduction. The attention is drawn to the following decision: 1. CIT vs Archana Dhanwate 136 ITR 355 (BOM) 2. CIT vs KN Oil Industries 142 ITR 13 (MP) 3. Nathmal Bankatlal Parikh vs CIT 122 ITR 168 5. Per contra The Ld. Departmental representative submitted that the assessee has not claimed the deduction under the correct section not is a nature of expenditure similar because the assessee has claimed the expenditure towards special reserve…

Thiruvananthapuram Road Development Co. Ltd, Orrissa vs. DCIT 14(3)(1), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is disposed of in terms of the order in ITA

ITA 622/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2010-11 Thiruvananthapuram Road Dcit-14(3)(1), Development Company Ltd. बनाम/ (Earlier Dcit-10(1), The Il & Fs Financial Centre, Room No.455, 4Th Floor, Vs. Plot No.C-22, Aayakar Bhavan, G Block, Bandra Kurla M. K. Road, Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400051 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aacct0547J Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit-14(3)(1), Thiruvananthapuram Road (Earlier Dcit-10(1), Development Company Ltd. बनाम/ Room No.455, 4Th Floor, The Il & Fs Financial Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Centre, Plot No.C-22, M. K. Road, G Block, Bandra Kurla Mumbai-400020 Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aacct0547J

Section 143Section 253Section 32

…has relied upon the various decisions e.g. S.R. Koshti v. CIT [2005] 276 ITR 165/146 Taxman 335 (Guj), C.P.A. Yoosuf v. ITO [1970] 77 ITR 237 (Ker.), CIT v. Bharat General Reinsurance Co. Ltd. [1971] 81 ITR 303 (Delhi), CIT v. Smt. Archana R. Dhanwatey [1982] 136 ITR 355/[1981] 7 Taxman 121 (Bom.). In view of the above discussed factual and legal position, we have no hesitation to hold that the assessee is entitled to put his alternate claim that the deduction allowable to him may be considered as allowable as depreciation treating the project/investments made under the head "Plant & machinery" or treating it as…

DCIT 14(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Thirvanthapuram Road Development Company Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is disposed of in terms of the order in ITA

ITA 4346/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2010-11 Thiruvananthapuram Road Dcit-14(3)(1), Development Company Ltd. बनाम/ (Earlier Dcit-10(1), The Il & Fs Financial Centre, Room No.455, 4Th Floor, Vs. Plot No.C-22, Aayakar Bhavan, G Block, Bandra Kurla M. K. Road, Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400051 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aacct0547J Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit-14(3)(1), Thiruvananthapuram Road (Earlier Dcit-10(1), Development Company Ltd. बनाम/ Room No.455, 4Th Floor, The Il & Fs Financial Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Centre, Plot No.C-22, M. K. Road, G Block, Bandra Kurla Mumbai-400020 Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aacct0547J

Section 143Section 253Section 32

…has relied upon the various decisions e.g. S.R. Koshti v. CIT [2005] 276 ITR 165/146 Taxman 335 (Guj), C.P.A. Yoosuf v. ITO [1970] 77 ITR 237 (Ker.), CIT v. Bharat General Reinsurance Co. Ltd. [1971] 81 ITR 303 (Delhi), CIT v. Smt. Archana R. Dhanwatey [1982] 136 ITR 355/[1981] 7 Taxman 121 (Bom.). In view of the above discussed factual and legal position, we have no hesitation to hold that the assessee is entitled to put his alternate claim that the deduction allowable to him may be considered as allowable as depreciation treating the project/investments made under the head "Plant & machinery" or treating it as…

The ACIT-3(1), Indore vs. M/S. Madhya Pradesh Audyogik Kendra Vikas Nigam (I) Ltd., Indore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee company –

ITA 534/IND/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Mar 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradआ.अ.सं /.I.T.A. No. 347 To 351/Ind/2013, 760 & 761/Ind/2014 "नधा"रण वष" // A.Ys.: 2003-04, 2004-05, 2006-07 To 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 Madhya Pradesh Audyogik Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Kendra Vikas Nigam Income-Tax, (Indore) Limited, 3(1), Indore. Indore. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent "था.ले.सं./Pan: Aadcm7525Q

For Respondent: Shri Manoj Munshi

…see S.R. Koshti vs. CIT (2005) 193 CTR (Guj) 518 : (2005) 276 ITR 165 (Guj), C.P.A. Yoosuf vs. ITO (1970) 77 ITR 237 (Ker), CIT vs. Bharat General Reinsurance Co. Ltd. (1971) 81 ITR 303 (Del), CIT vs. Archana R. Dhanwatey (1981) 24 CTR (Bom) 142 : (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 vs. Sreeni Printers (1987) 67 SCC 279]. 33. This Court in the case of Nirmala L. Mehta vs. A. Balasubramaniam, CIT (2004) 191 CTR (Bom) 8 : -: 152 :- MPAKVN AND SEZ (Indore ) & SEZ Ltd.,Indore (2004) 269 ITR 1…

The ACIT-3(1), Indore vs. M/S. Madhya Pradesh Audyogik Kendra Vikas Nigam (I) Ltd., Indore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee company –

ITA 533/IND/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Mar 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradआ.अ.सं /.I.T.A. No. 347 To 351/Ind/2013, 760 & 761/Ind/2014 "नधा"रण वष" // A.Ys.: 2003-04, 2004-05, 2006-07 To 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 Madhya Pradesh Audyogik Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Kendra Vikas Nigam Income-Tax, (Indore) Limited, 3(1), Indore. Indore. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent "था.ले.सं./Pan: Aadcm7525Q

For Respondent: Shri Manoj Munshi

…see S.R. Koshti vs. CIT (2005) 193 CTR (Guj) 518 : (2005) 276 ITR 165 (Guj), C.P.A. Yoosuf vs. ITO (1970) 77 ITR 237 (Ker), CIT vs. Bharat General Reinsurance Co. Ltd. (1971) 81 ITR 303 (Del), CIT vs. Archana R. Dhanwatey (1981) 24 CTR (Bom) 142 : (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 vs. Sreeni Printers (1987) 67 SCC 279]. 33. This Court in the case of Nirmala L. Mehta vs. A. Balasubramaniam, CIT (2004) 191 CTR (Bom) 8 : -: 152 :- MPAKVN AND SEZ (Indore ) & SEZ Ltd.,Indore (2004) 269 ITR 1…

The ACIT-3(1), Indore vs. M/S. Madhya Pradesh Audyogik Kendra Vikas Nigam (I) Ltd., Indore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee company –

ITA 532/IND/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Mar 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradआ.अ.सं /.I.T.A. No. 347 To 351/Ind/2013, 760 & 761/Ind/2014 "नधा"रण वष" // A.Ys.: 2003-04, 2004-05, 2006-07 To 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 Madhya Pradesh Audyogik Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Kendra Vikas Nigam Income-Tax, (Indore) Limited, 3(1), Indore. Indore. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent "था.ले.सं./Pan: Aadcm7525Q

For Respondent: Shri Manoj Munshi

…see S.R. Koshti vs. CIT (2005) 193 CTR (Guj) 518 : (2005) 276 ITR 165 (Guj), C.P.A. Yoosuf vs. ITO (1970) 77 ITR 237 (Ker), CIT vs. Bharat General Reinsurance Co. Ltd. (1971) 81 ITR 303 (Del), CIT vs. Archana R. Dhanwatey (1981) 24 CTR (Bom) 142 : (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 vs. Sreeni Printers (1987) 67 SCC 279]. 33. This Court in the case of Nirmala L. Mehta vs. A. Balasubramaniam, CIT (2004) 191 CTR (Bom) 8 : -: 152 :- MPAKVN AND SEZ (Indore ) & SEZ Ltd.,Indore (2004) 269 ITR 1…

The ACIT-3(1), Indore vs. M/S. Madhya Pradesh Audyogik Kendra Vikas Nigam (I) Ltd., Indore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee company –

ITA 531/IND/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Mar 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradआ.अ.सं /.I.T.A. No. 347 To 351/Ind/2013, 760 & 761/Ind/2014 "नधा"रण वष" // A.Ys.: 2003-04, 2004-05, 2006-07 To 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 Madhya Pradesh Audyogik Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Kendra Vikas Nigam Income-Tax, (Indore) Limited, 3(1), Indore. Indore. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent "था.ले.सं./Pan: Aadcm7525Q

For Respondent: Shri Manoj Munshi

…see S.R. Koshti vs. CIT (2005) 193 CTR (Guj) 518 : (2005) 276 ITR 165 (Guj), C.P.A. Yoosuf vs. ITO (1970) 77 ITR 237 (Ker), CIT vs. Bharat General Reinsurance Co. Ltd. (1971) 81 ITR 303 (Del), CIT vs. Archana R. Dhanwatey (1981) 24 CTR (Bom) 142 : (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 vs. Sreeni Printers (1987) 67 SCC 279]. 33. This Court in the case of Nirmala L. Mehta vs. A. Balasubramaniam, CIT (2004) 191 CTR (Bom) 8 : -: 152 :- MPAKVN AND SEZ (Indore ) & SEZ Ltd.,Indore (2004) 269 ITR 1…