Balmukund Acharya v. DCIT

West Gujarat Exdpress Way Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT -14(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

…ke, 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 tax dues are collected. The Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in Balmukand Acharya vs DCIT: [2009] 221 CTR 440 (Bom.) has held that authorities under the Act are under obligation to act in accordance with law. Thus, the mere fact that the assessee has claimed depreciation at 15% by treating the road as ‘plant and machinery’ by following the consistent stand of the appellate authorities in its own case, which as noted above was subsequently modified follow…

ACIT, Circle-14(1)(2), Mumbai vs. West Gujarat Express Way Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

…ke, 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 tax dues are collected. The Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in Balmukand Acharya vs DCIT: [2009] 221 CTR 440 (Bom.) has held that authorities under the Act are under obligation to act in accordance with law. Thus, the mere fact that the assessee has claimed depreciation at 15% by treating the road as ‘plant and machinery’ by following the consistent stand of the appellate authorities in its own case, which as noted above was subsequently modified follow…

Cma Cgm Sa, Mumbai vs. ACIT, (International Taxation)- 2(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by assessee is partly allowed

…of income, now by way of additional ground assessee is claiming it non-taxable. It is a well settled principle that true income of the assessee should be taxed and only legitimate taxes should be collected from the assessee. [ Re: Balmukund Acharya Vs. DCIT, 310 ITR 310 (Bom)]. The assessee by way of additional evidences has supported the contentions raised in additional grounds of appeal. It is not a case where the assessee has raised altogether a fresh issue which was neither part of the income tax return or assessment proceedings. The assessee has changed its stand from offering income to tax in the return of…

Joint CIT (OSD) Cent Cir. 1(4), Mumbai vs. Grasim Industries Ltd., Mumbai

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

…ayed‖ as non est. Lastly it is settled law that the authorities under the Act are required to assist him and ensure that only legitimate taxes due are collected. Reliance is placed on the decision of Hon‟ble Bombay HC in the case of Balmukund Acharya v. DCIT (310 ITR 310) whereby Article 265 of the Constitution has been relied upon to hold that entitled to where the tax is levied or collected without authority of law. Now if the Supreme Court holds that subsidy is capital receipt, Assessee is entitled to claim refund of taxes wrongly paid earlier. Para 5(ix) and The Bombay High Court Please see comments in Para a…

Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT (Ltu)-2, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P.P.Bhatt & Shri Shamim Yahya

…been allowed following the analogy of taxing the pre-operative interest income. For this proposition we rely on the CBDT Circular No 14(XL-35) of 1955 dt. 11-04-1955 and also below decisions: • Nirmala L Mehta v CIT 269 ITR 1 (Bom) • Balmukund Acharya v DCIT 310 ITR 310 (Bom) 30. In any case, the fact of non-claiming of pre-operative expenses of Rs. 3,308 crs was brought to the attention of the AO in the response dated 12-09-2018 to notice issued under section 154. (pi refer pg 156 to 161 of FPB @ pg 160-161) Ground of appeal no. 3(c) 31. Vide ground of appeal no 3(c), without prejudice to contentions raised in…

The Thane Zilla Madhyamik Shikshak Sangh Sahakari Patpedhi Maryadit, Thane vs. ACIT Palghar Circle, Palghar, Thane

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

…amaniam reported in 269 ITR 1 (Bom) b. Decision of the Hon‟ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CWT vs. APAR Ltd., reported in 267 ITR 705 (Bom) c. Decision of the Hon‟ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Balkukund Acharya vs. DCIT reported in 310 ITR 310 (Bom) d. Decision of Hon‟ble Gujarat High Court in the case of P.V. Doshi vs. CIT reported in 113 ITR 22 (Guj) 6.5. It is also well settled that any amount of admission or misapprehension could not make an item taxable which is otherwise not so. In support of this, we would like to place reliance on the following decisions:- a. Decision of Hon‟…

ACIT 24(1), Mumbai vs. M/S.Ganga Enterprise, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M.Balaganeshacit-24(1) Vs. M/S. Ganga Enterprise Flat No.25, 2Nd Floor Room No.603, Piramal Chambers, Jeejeebhoy Lane Lokhandwala Saranga Chsl, 3Rd Cros Lane, Lalbaug, Parel Mumbai-400 012 Lokhandwala Complex Andheri(W) Mumbai-400 053 Pan/Gir No.Aagff4250L (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee By None Revenue By Shri V.Vinod Kumar, Sr.Ar Date Of Hearing 29/10/2020 Date Of Pronouncement 11/11/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per M. Balaganesh (A.M): This Appeal Filed By Revenue In Ita No.6580/Mum/2018 For Assessment Year 2013-14 Arise Out Of The Order By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-36, Mumbai In Appeal No.Cit(A)-36/It-118/Acit-24(1)/2016-17, Dated 30/08/2018 (Ld. Cit(A) In Short) Against The Order Of Assessment Passed U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As Act) Dated 23/03/2016 By The Ld. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax -24(1), Mumbai (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. Ao).

…oss of Rs. 2,09,09,645/- instead of Rs. 49,09,645/- by filing revised computation of income shall be sustained. The assessee also placed reliance on yet another decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Balmukund Acharya vs DCIT reported in 310 ITR 310 (Bom). The assessee also placed reliance on the CBDT circular No. 14 (XL-35), dated 11/04/1955, wherein the board has directed all the AOs to give eligible deductions /exemptions to the assessee as per provisions of law and do not take advantage of ignorance of assessee. The assessee virtually pleaded that the capital gains erroneously offered fr…

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

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

…56 Taxman 299 (Bom)(HC) it is held that "There is no requirement in law that evidence in support of its case must be produced only at the time when the seizure has been made and not during the assessment proceedings.". (ii) In Balmukund Acharya v DCIT [2009] 310 ITR 310 (Bom)(HC) [Pg 68- 74] Assessee had offered Long Term Capital gains on sale of Godown to tax. However, before CIT(A) for the first time, Assessee contended that the sale of Godown was not taxable.CIT(A) did not decide the claim of Assessee. ITAT confirmed the order of CIT(A). Order of ITAT was set-aside by the High Court. It has been held by the…

Greaves Cotton Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 6(3), Mumbai

In the result this appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singh

…further submits that acquiescence cannot take away from a party, the relief, which he is entitled to where the tax is levied or collected without authority of law as held by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Nirmala L Mehta [269 ITR 1 (Bom)] and Balmukand Acharya [310 ITR 310 (Bom)]. ITA No. 279 M 13, 1007 & 754 Mum 2014-Greaves Cotton Ltd. 24. On the ratio that appellate authority have jurisdiction to consider revised claim in the form of additional ground. The ld. AR relied on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Pruthvi Broker & Shareholders Pvt. Ltd. [349 ITR 336 (Bom)] and Hon’ble Supreme Cou…

M/S.Geeta Garden Constultants Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 9(3)(3), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh (Jm) & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman (A.M.) M/S Geeta Garden Vs Ito-9(3)(3), Mumbai Consultants Pvt Ltd, Tenament No.19/002, Ground Floor, Link Road, Msb Colony, Cts No.1, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari (W), Mumbai 400 101 Pan :Aaacg1755D Appellant Respondednt

…considered view the acquiescence cannot take away from a party, the relief, which he is entitled to where the tax is levied or collected without authority of law as held by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Nirmala L Mehta [269 ITR 1 (Bom)] and Balmukand Acharya [310 ITR 310 4 ITA 6700/Mum/2018 (Bom)]. Therefore, considering the ratio of decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court we restore the issue back to the file of assessing officer, with the direction to examine the facts and decide the issue afresh and pass the order in accordance with law. The assessee is also directed to file all necessary information a…

Mumbai International Airport P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 10(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Soodmumbai International Airport Vs. Dcit,Circle-10(2)(2) Private Limited Room No.209,Aaykar Bhawan Finance Department M.K.Road 1St Floor, Terminal 1B Mumbai-400 020 Chhatrapati Shivaji Internaitonal Airport Santacruz (E) Mumbai-400 099 Pan/Gir No.Aaecm6285C (Appellant) .. (Respondent) & Dcit-10(2)(2) Vs. Mumbai International Room No.216-A,Aaykar Bhawan Airport Private Limited M.K.Road Finance Department, 1St Floor, Terminal 1B Mumbai-400 020 Chhatrapati Shivaji Internaitonal Airport Santacruz (E) Mumbai-400 099

…is levied or collected without authority of law and, therefore, merely because the taxpayer offered a receipt to tax, that cannot take away its right in contending that the said amount was not chargeable to tax. 14.15. In the case of Balmukund Acharya vs DCIT 310 ITR 310 (Bom), Hon’ble Bombay High Court observed that the Apex Court and various High Courts have ruled that authorities under the Income-tax law are under an obligation to act in accordance with law. Tax can be collected only as provided under the Act. If an assessee, under a mistake, misconception or not being properly instructed is over assessed, the…

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

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.

…authorities can levy the tax as per the provision of law and not on the income agreed by the assessee. The ld. AR in support of his contention relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Balmukund Acharya Vs. DCIT and others reported in 310 ITR 310. In view of the above, the learned AR accordingly claimed that there cannot be any addition on account of deemed rental income as there was no incriminating document found during the search. ITA nos.4635-4637 & 4641/MUM/2017 Asstt. Years ( 2006-07 to 2009-10) 8 10. The Ld. DR, on the other hand, argued vehemently on the validity of the assessme…