What is Balmukund Acharya v. DCIT authority for?

Tax authorities are obligated to act in accordance with the law and ensure only legitimate taxes are collected, assisting assessees who have been over-assessed due to mistake or misconception.

How many judgments cite Balmukund Acharya v. DCIT?

116 judgments on BharatTax cite Balmukund Acharya v. DCIT (310 ITR 310), spanning 2014 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Balmukund Acharya v. DCIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 2(47)(v), Section 36(1)(iii), Section 132(4), Section 147, Section 153C.

Balmukund Acharya v. DCIT (310 ITR 310)

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)

…ssessee is not entitled to any deduction. The only issue in dispute is as to under what head/provision the deduction is to be allowed to the assessee. The Hon‟ble Jurisdiction High Court of Bombay in the case of "Balmukund Acharya vs. DCIT" reported in (2009) 221 CTR 440 (Bom.) has held that the Hon‟ble Apex Court and the various High Courts have ruled that the authorities under the Act are under obligation to act in accordance with law. Tax can be collected only as provided under the Act. If the assessee, under a mistake, misconception or on not being properly instructed is over assessed, the authorities under t…

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)

…ssessee is not entitled to any deduction. The only issue in dispute is as to under what head/provision the deduction is to be allowed to the assessee. The Hon‟ble Jurisdiction High Court of Bombay in the case of "Balmukund Acharya vs. DCIT" reported in (2009) 221 CTR 440 (Bom.) has held that the Hon‟ble Apex Court and the various High Courts have ruled that the authorities under the Act are under obligation to act in accordance with law. Tax can be collected only as provided under the Act. If the assessee, under a mistake, misconception or on not being properly instructed is over assessed, the authorities under t…

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)

…ssessee is not entitled to any deduction. The only issue in dispute is as to under what head/provision the deduction is to be allowed to the assessee. The Hon‟ble Jurisdiction High Court of Bombay in the case of "Balmukund Acharya vs. DCIT" reported in (2009) 221 CTR 440 (Bom.) has held that the Hon‟ble Apex Court and the various High Courts have ruled that the authorities under the Act are under obligation to act in accordance with law. Tax can be collected only as provided under the Act. If the assessee, under a mistake, misconception or on not being properly instructed is over assessed, the authorities under t…

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

…e that the assessee is not entitled to any deduction. The only issue in dispute is as to under what head/provision the deduction is to be allowed to the assessee. The Hon'ble Jurisdiction High Court of Bombay in the case of Balmukund Acharya v. Dy. CIT [2009] 310 ITR 310/176 Taxman 316 has held that the Hon'ble Apex Court and the various High Courts have ruled that the authorities under the Act are under obligation to act in accordance with law. Tax can be collected only as provided under the Act. If the assessee, under a mistake, misconception or on not being properly instructed is over assessed, the authorities…

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

…ut the ITAT directed the Assessing Officer to allow the claim under the correct section after providing due opportunity of hearing. She also referred to the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Balmukund Achayra Vs. DCIT and others reported at 310 ITR 310 wherein the issue of giving relief was admissible to the assessee even if it was not claimed in the return of income. 11.1 Ld. CIT(A) categorically stated that in the present case the assessee in the computation of income, filed alongwith return of income, claimed the exemption as “ under section 54F / 54B”, the said computation sheet had been r…

DCIT 5(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Deepak Shashi Bhushan Roy, Mumbai

In the result these grounds of appeal raised

ITA 3204/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahaha & Shri Pawan Singhdcit 5(3)(1), Deepak Shashi Bhusan Roy, Flat Room No.573, Aayakar Bhavan, No.11, Rambha Chs Ltd, M.K.Road, Nepean Sea Road, Vs. Mumbai 400020 Mumbai-400006 Pan:Aaapr 7703 F

For Respondent: Shri RAM Tiwari (Sr.DR)

Section 143(3)Section 23(4)Section 23(4)(a)Section 234BSection 254(1)

…f income from self occupied house property by adopting 8% of cost of construction as ALV as against Municipal ratable value adopted by the assessee. It has been held by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Balmukund Acharya vs. DCIT reported in [2009] 310 ITR 310 that the A.O. should not take advantage of the assessee’s ignorance of law. Since the claim of the ALV by the assessee on the basis of Municipal Ratable value has been rejected by the A.O. and the same was substituted by him at 8% of the cost of construction, the A.O., in our opinion should have considered the flat at Vikas Anand as self occupied…

Shri Anil Kumar Bajaj, Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4392/DEL/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani TanejaFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Kant Gupta

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 141Section 142(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’ NEW DLEHI BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL, PRESIDENT AND SHRI K. NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.4392/Del/2014 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Anil Kumar Bajaj, Vs Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax , 3/47, Roop Nagar, Delhi. Central Circle -17, New Delhi. (PAN: AALPB2378R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Ashwani Taneja Respondent by: Shri Ravi Kant Gupta ORDER PER NARASIMHA K. CHARY, JM Challenging the orders of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-II, New Delhi (for short hereinafter called as “the learned CIT(A)’) in Appeal No.47/…

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

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ, ई, मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “E”, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी एन. के. "धान, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri N.K. Pradhan, Accountant Member Assessment 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 Assessm…

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

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ, ई, मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “E”, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी एन. के. "धान, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri N.K. Pradhan, Accountant Member Assessment 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 Assessm…

Oricon Enterprises Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 3(3), Mumbai

ITA 2913/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: S/Sh. Rajendra & Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Arvind SondeFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Swamy-CIT-DR

Section 14Section 148Section 254(1)Section 36(1)(v)Section 40A(7)Section 43Section 43B

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, , , , मुंबई आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण मुंबई मुंबई “ई” ” ” ” खंडपीठ मुंबई खंडपीठ खंडपीठ खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal “E”Bench Mumbai सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" राजे"", लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं एवं पवन "सह पवन "सह,"याियक "याियक सद"य सद"य सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" राजे"" लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं एवं पवन "सह पवन "सह "याियक "याियक सद"य सद"य Before S/Sh. Rajendra,Accountant Member & Pawan Singh, Judicial Member आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./2913/Mum/2015, िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2007-08 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" M/s. Oricon Enterprises…

Shri T.N. Rajamohan, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the assesse’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2540/CHNY/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri ARV Sreenivasan, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 54F

…आयकर अपील"यअ"धकरण ,’ ए ’ "यायपीठ,चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, CHENNAI "ी धु"वु" आर. एल रे"डी, "या"यक सद"य एवं, "ी एस जयरामन लेखा सद"य समक् BEFORE SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं/.I.T.A. No. 2540/Chny/2016 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year : 2009-10 Shri T.N. Rajamohan, The Assistant Commissioner of No. 18, 4th Cross street, Vs. Income Tax, Mandavelli, Non-Corporate Circle – 2, Chennai – 600 028. Chennai. [PAN: AGEPR 6390L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (%&यथ(/Respondent) Assessee by : Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate Revenue by : Shri ARV Sreenivasan…