Balmukund Acharya v. DCIT

310 ITR 310High Court2009#928 most cited

What is Balmukund Acharya v. DCIT authority for?

Tax authorities are obligated to act in accordance with the law and collect only legitimate taxes. They must assist an assessee who is over-assessed due to mistake or misconception, even if the assessee initially admitted income but later disputes it with corroborative evidence.

116

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2014 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Balmukund Acharya · tax authorities duty · legitimate tax collection · over-assessment · mistake · misconception · admission of income · subsequent dispute · Section 143(3) · Section 147

Also reported as

176 Taxmann 316221 CTR 440

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 2(47)(v)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 132(4)Section 147Section 153CSection 2(47)(vi)Section 139(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 2(47)(v)annual letting valuejoint development agreementjdapercentage completion methodannual valuesection 52section 53aproject completion methodsection 2(47)section 53right to receive

Judgments citing Balmukund Acharya v. DCIT

INCOME TAX OFFICER, KOLKATA vs. MILESTONE FINSTOCK PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1180/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2012-13 Ito, Ward-12(1), Kolkata…..…………..………….……….……….……Appellant Vs. Milestone Finstock Pvt. Ltd..……...…………………….....……...…..…..Respondent 62A, Hazra Road, Kol-700019. [Pan: Aaccm0280B] Appearances By: Shri Mohit Mrinal, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri N S Saini, Ar & Priyanka Salarpuria, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 07, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 24, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 24.09.2020 Of The Cit(Appeals)-4, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2012–13. 2. The Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue With A Delay Of 1075 Days & The Revenue Has Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of The Delay. The Contents Of The Said Affidavit Are As Under: Milestone Finstock Pvt. Ltd

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 73

…tax that is not authorized. Any retention of tax collected, which is not otherwise payable, would be illegal and unconstitutional. The ld. CIT(A) also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Bal Mukund Acharya Vs. DCIT reported in 310 ITR 310 where the Court held that if an assessee, under a mistake, misconception or on not being properly instructed is over assessed, the authorities under the Act are required to assist him and ensure that only legitimate taxes due are collected and Calcutta High Court in the case of Maynak Poddar HUF Vs. Wealth Tax Officer reported in 262 ITR 633 (Cal…

MR POPATRAO DASHRATHRAO SURYAWANSHI,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(4), PUNE, PUNE

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

ITA 234/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18 Mr. Popatrao Dashrathrao Suryawanshi Ito, Ward 7(4), Pune S.No.38, Tingre Nagar, Havaldar Mala, Vs. Vishrantwadi, Pune – 411015 Pan: Adhps2643F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Suhas Bora Department By : Shri Manish Mehta, Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing : 19-01-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-01-2026 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Suhas BoraFor Respondent: Shri Manish Mehta, Addl.CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 45(2)Section 54BSection 54F

…se of CIT vs. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders (supra), he submitted that the assessee can make a new claim during the appellate proceedings. 14. Referring to the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Balmukund Acharya vs. CIT reported in (2009) 310 ITR 310 (Bom) and the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Shri Devendra Pai vs. ACIT reported in 439 ITR 532 (Kar), he submitted that the department must not take advantage of ignorance of the assessee about his rights and it is their duty to assist the tax payer in every reasonable way. 15. Referring to the following decisions, he s…

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)

…additional income would not automatically entitle the assessing officer to assess the same, if the assessee disputes the same subsequently with corroborative evidences. 8.29 The Hon'ble Bombay High Court has dealt with this issue in case of Balmukund Acharya (310 ITR 310), wherein it was held as under:- "31. Having said so, we must observe that the Apex Court and the various High Courts have ruled that the authorities under the Act are under an obligation to act in accordance with law. Tax can be collected only as provided under the Act. If any assessee, under a mistake, misconceptions or on not being properly in…

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)

…additional income would not automatically entitle the assessing officer to assess the same, if the assessee disputes the same subsequently with corroborative evidences. 8.29 The Hon'ble Bombay High Court has dealt with this issue in case of Balmukund Acharya (310 ITR 310), wherein it was held as under:- "31. Having said so, we must observe that the Apex Court and the various High Courts have ruled that the authorities under the Act are under an obligation to act in accordance with law. Tax can be collected only as provided under the Act. If any assessee, under a mistake, misconceptions or on not being properly in…

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)

…additional income would not automatically entitle the assessing officer to assess the same, if the assessee disputes the same subsequently with corroborative evidences. 8.29 The Hon'ble Bombay High Court has dealt with this issue in case of Balmukund Acharya (310 ITR 310), wherein it was held as under:- "31. Having said so, we must observe that the Apex Court and the various High Courts have ruled that the authorities under the Act are under an obligation to act in accordance with law. Tax can be collected only as provided under the Act. If any assessee, under a mistake, misconceptions or on not being properly in…

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)

…additional income would not automatically entitle the assessing officer to assess the same, if the assessee disputes the same subsequently with corroborative evidences. 8.29 The Hon'ble Bombay High Court has dealt with this issue in case of Balmukund Acharya (310 ITR 310), wherein it was held as under:- "31. Having said so, we must observe that the Apex Court and the various High Courts have ruled that the authorities under the Act are under an obligation to act in accordance with law. Tax can be collected only as provided under the Act. If any assessee, under a mistake, misconceptions or on not being properly in…

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)

…additional income would not automatically entitle the assessing officer to assess the same, if the assessee disputes the same subsequently with corroborative evidences. 8.29 The Hon'ble Bombay High Court has dealt with this issue in case of Balmukund Acharya (310 ITR 310), wherein it was held as under:- "31. Having said so, we must observe that the Apex Court and the various High Courts have ruled that the authorities under the Act are under an obligation to act in accordance with law. Tax can be collected only as provided under the Act. If any assessee, under a mistake, misconceptions or on not being properly in…

MOHIT VIJAYKUMAR GUPTA,MUMBAI vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, Ground No

ITA 1091/AHD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1091/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2021-22 Mohit Vijaykumar Gupta The Dcit बनाम/ B-1001, Juhu Trishul, Circle-2(1)(1) V/S. Gulmohar Cross Road No.6 Ahmedabad – 380 015 Jvpd Vile Parle West Mumbai – 400 049 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Adfpg 7162 D (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri J. C. Desai, Ca Revenue By : Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/11/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Siddhartha Nautiyal, Jm: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 14/12/2025 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2021-2022. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: Mohit Vijaykumar Gupta Vs. Dcit Asst. Year : 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri J. C. Desai, CAFor Respondent: Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.DR
Section 22Section 23(1)(c)Section 24Section 250

…not beneficial and subsequently during the assessment seeks to substitute another property as self-occupied, such a claim should be allowed. The Tribunal in that case relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Balmukund Acharya v. DCIT [(2009) 310 ITR 310 (Bom)] to hold that the Assessing Officer should not take advantage of an assessee’s ignorance of law and that beneficial interpretation should be given to the taxpayer where permissible. Following the ratio laid down by the coordinate bench in Asha Mohit Vijaykumar Gupta vs. DCIT Asst. Year : 2021-22 Bhonsle v. ITO (supra), we hold that the ass…

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

…see is not entitled to any deduction. The\nonly issue in dispute is as to under what head/provision the\ndeduction is to be allowed to the assessee. The Hon'ble\nJurisdiction High Court of Bombay in the case of\n\"BalmukundAcharya vs. DCIT\" reported in (2009)221 CTR 440\n(Bom.)has held that the Hon'ble Apex Court and the various\nHigh Courts have ruled that the authorities under the Act are\nunder obligation to act in accordance with law. Tax can be\ncollected only as provided under the Act.\nIf the assessee, under a mistake, misconception or on not being\nproperly instructed is over assessed, the authorities un…

ADITYA BIRLA FINANCE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX - 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 4821/MUM/2024[AY 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2025
For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar & Ms. S.Jayaram, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, (CIT DR)
Section 143(3)Section 32Section 43BSection 80G

…{ "clean_text": "IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH,\nMUMBAI\nBEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER\n&\nSHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nITA No.4821/MUM/2024\n(A.Y. 2017-18)\nAditya Birla Finance Limited v/s. Assistant Commissioner of\nLimited, Tower 1, 18th Floor, बनाम Income Tax, Circle\nOne World Center, 841, 2(1)(1), Aayakar Bhavan,\nSenapati Bapat Marg, Mumbai Mumbai 400 020,\n400 013, Maharashtra Maharashtra\nस्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: AABCB5769M\nAppellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी\nAppellant by : Shri Yogesh Thar & Ms. S.Jayaram, ARs\nRespondent by : Shri R…

PIRAMAL CAPITAL AND HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ADDITIONAL-JOINT-DEPUTY-ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INDIA, NA

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

ITA 3776/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Ronak Doshi a/w Shri Priyank
Section 143(3)Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & MS PADMAVATHY S, AM I.T.A. No.3776/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Piramal Capital and Housing Addl.-Joint-Deputy-Assistant Finance Ltd., CIT, NA Unit 6th Floor, Piramal Corporate Maharashtra. Vs. Tower, LBS Marg, Near Kamani Junction, Kurla, Mumbai-400070. PAN : AAACD1977A Appellant) : Respondent) Appellant /Assessee by : Shri Ronak Doshi a/w Shri Priyank Gala, AR : Shri Ramakrishna Bandi, CIT- DR Revenue / Respondent by Date of Hearing : 06.11.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 12.11.2024 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S, AM: This a…

YASHVARDHAN JATIA TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. ASSESSING OFFICER CPC , BANGLORE

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

ITA 2541/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Anuj KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT/DR
Section 10(35)Section 10(38)Section 115BSection 154Section 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2018-19 Yashvardhan Jatia Trust Assessing Officer, CPC, Bangalore 18/20 M Floor Bhogilal Vs. Hargovindas Building H Dubash Road Fort, Mumbai-400001. PAN: AAATY 4137 A (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Shri Anuj Kisnadwala Revenue by : Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT/DR Date of Hearing : 05.08.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 21.10.2024 O R D E R PER AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2018-…

SHIVALIK PRINTS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, SPECIAL RANGE-8, NEW DELHI

In the result, assessees’ appeals in ITA nos

ITA 8136/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraassessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 80Section 80J

…n in support of the Assessee's claim. In this regard please refer following judicial precedents amongst others. 81 ITR 303 (DEL) CIT vs. Bharat General Insurance Company Ltd. ACIT v. Technofab Engg. Ltd., 2009 TIOL, 664 ITAT (Del.) Balmukund Acharya v. Dy.CIT 310 ITR 310(Bom.) Nirmala L. Mehta v. A. Balasubramaniam, CIT [2004] 269 ITR 1 (Bom.) [B] Powers of the CIT(A) are coterminous with that of the Assessing Officer and any admissible claim if not made before the AO can be made before the CIT(A) 2.2 It is submitted that the powers of the CIT(A) are co-terminus with that of the Assessing Officer. Hon'ble Supreme…

M/S. SHIVALIK PRINTS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, assessees’ appeals in ITA nos

ITA 2296/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraassessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 80Section 80J

…n in support of the Assessee's claim. In this regard please refer following judicial precedents amongst others. 81 ITR 303 (DEL) CIT vs. Bharat General Insurance Company Ltd. ACIT v. Technofab Engg. Ltd., 2009 TIOL, 664 ITAT (Del.) Balmukund Acharya v. Dy.CIT 310 ITR 310(Bom.) Nirmala L. Mehta v. A. Balasubramaniam, CIT [2004] 269 ITR 1 (Bom.) [B] Powers of the CIT(A) are coterminous with that of the Assessing Officer and any admissible claim if not made before the AO can be made before the CIT(A) 2.2 It is submitted that the powers of the CIT(A) are co-terminus with that of the Assessing Officer. Hon'ble Supreme…

KUMAR HOUSING CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED(PREVIOUSLY KUNOWN AS KUL URBAN DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD),PUNE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-14(2), PUNE

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

ITA 539/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S. PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “A” BENCH : PUNE BEFORE SHRI RAMA KANTA PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA.No.539/PUN/2024 Assessment Year 2016-17 Kumar Housing Corporation ITO, Ward-14(2), Pvt. Ltd.,(Previously known as Kul Pune Urban Development Pvt. Ltd.) vs. 2409, East Street, Camp, Pune 411001 Maharashtra PAN : AABCL4692F (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Nikhil S. Pathak For Revenue : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date of Hearing : 03.07.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 23.07.2024 ORDER PER RAMA KANTA PANDA, V.P. : This appeal filed by the assessee is directed…

CONCENTRIX SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS MINACS PRIVATE LIMITED, MINACS LIMITED AND ADITYA BIRLA MINACS WORLDWIDE LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. DCIT 10(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the additional ground of appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1235/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1235/Mum/2015 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Concentrix Services India बिधम/ Dcit-10(2)(2) Pvt. Ltd Room No. 209, Aayakar Vs. (Formerly Known As Minacs Bhavan, M. K. Road, Pvt. Ltd, Minacs Limited Churchgate, Mumbai- & Aditya Birla Minacs 400020. Worldwide Limited) 9Th Floor, Symphony It Park, Chandivali Farm Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400072. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaact1567A (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Chaitanya Joshi & Riken Shah Revenue By: Shri P. Sudhakar Naik सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 01/04/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/04/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) Read With Section 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) Dated 30.01.2015 Passed By The Dcit- 10(2)(2), Mumbai For Ay. 2010-11, Pursuant To Direction Of The Dispute Resolution Panel-1, Mumbai (Hereinafter “The Ld. Drp”) Dated 27.10.2014. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Has Brought To Our Notice That This Appeal Of The Assessee Company For The Relevant Year I.E. Ay. 2010-11 Was Partly Allowed By This Tribunal Vide Order Dated 12.06.2023. & Thereafter, The Assessee Preferred A Miscellaneous Application (Ma)

For Appellant: Shri Chaitanya Joshi & Riken ShahFor Respondent: Shri P. Sudhakar Naik
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 37

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1235/Mum/2015 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Concentrix Services India बिधम/ DCIT-10(2)(2) Pvt. Ltd Room No. 209, Aayakar Vs. (Formerly known as Minacs Bhavan, M. K. Road, Pvt. Ltd, Minacs Limited Churchgate, Mumbai- and Aditya Birla Minacs 400020. Worldwide Limited) 9th Floor, Symphony IT Park, Chandivali Farm Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400072. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAACT1567A (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee by: Shri…

UNIVERSAL EDUCATION FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. ASST DIT (E) II(2), MUMBAI

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

ITA 1097/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jan 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleuniversal Education Foundation V. Assistant Director Of Income-Tax (Exemption) – Ii(2) 1St Floor, Filka Building Mumbai Daftary Road, Malad (W) Mumbai - 400097 Pan: Aabcu0516D (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 11(1)Section 143(3)Section 254Section 254(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Universal Education Foundation v. Assistant Director of Income-Tax (Exemption) – II(2) 1st Floor, Filka Building Mumbai Daftary Road, Malad (W) Mumbai - 400097 PAN: AABCU0516D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented by : Shri Anant Pai Shri Ashok Kumar Ambartha Department Represented by : Date of conclusion of Hearing : 20.10.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 17.01.2024 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (AM) 1. This appeal is filed by the assessee ag…

DCIT- 8(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. PIRAMAL ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2015/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri Ronak Doshi/Priyank Gandhi/MsFor Respondent: Shri N. V. Nadkarni, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 24Section 250

…ect income and to point out the reliefs due to the assessee. For this contention, the Appellant places reliance on the following judicial pronouncements: • CIT v. Pruthvi Brokers and Shareholders [2012] 349 ITR 336 (Bom HC) • Balmukund Acharya v DCIT [2009] 310 ITR 310 (Bom HC) • Choksi Metal Refinery v. CIT (107 ITR 63) (Guj HC) • Chicago Pneumatic India Ltd v. DCIT (15 SOT 252) (Mum Trib.) 7. Thus, in view of the above and the Hon'ble Mumbai Tribunal's order in Assessee's own case for A.Y. 2009-10 in M.A. 252/Mum/2020 arising out of ITA Piramal Estates Pvt. Ltd. 779/Mum/2014 (Page No 152-160 of LPB), the…

TITAGARH CAPITAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES(P)LTD,KOLKATA vs. ITO, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 382/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Nov 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 14ASection 250

…e in its return for a particular year, it cannot confer jurisdiction on the department to tax that income in that year even though legally such income did not pertain to that year. d) The Bombay High Court in Balmukund Acharya v. Dy. CIT, Special Range [2009] 310 ITR 310/176 Taxman 316 held that Tax can be collected only as provided under the Act. If any assessee, under a mistake, misconception or on not being properly instructed is over assessed, the authorities under the Act are required to assist him and ensure that only legitimate taxes due are collected. e) The Bombay High Court in Nirmala L. Mehta v. A. Bal…

OM PRAKASH BISHU,KUCHAMAN CITY vs. DCIT, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 107/JODH/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur18 Aug 2023AY 2019-20
Section 115BSection 133ASection 142ASection 142A(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 69B

…hority 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." (viii). In another instance the Bombay High Court in the case of Balmukund Acharyavs DCIT, CIT and UOI 310 ITR 310 (Bom.) has held that "Tax can be collected only as provided under the Act. If any assessee, under a mistake, misconception or on not being properly instructed is over assessed, 22 Om Prakash Bishnu the authorities under the Act are required to assist him and ensure that only legitimate taxes due are collected." (ix). In Sanchit Software & Solu…

Showing 1–20 of 116 · Page 1 of 6