CIT v. Bharat General Reinsurance Co Ltd.

81 ITR 303High Court1971#456 most cited

What is CIT v. Bharat General Reinsurance Co Ltd. authority for?

Income received by an assessee for services rendered to an Indian company may not be taxable, particularly when the Revenue does not contest its non-taxability. This principle aligns with CBDT Circular No. 14 of 1955, which has been approved by the Supreme Court.

202

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Bharat General Reinsurance Co Ltd · 81 ITR 303 · taxability of service income · income for services rendered · CBDT Circular No. 14 of 1955 · non-taxable income · services to Indian company · upholding tribunal findings · department appeal dismissed

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153CSection 132(4)Section 153ASection 132Section 139(1)Section 143(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 153(a)(1)section 10b(8)section 158bb(1)retraction of statementsection 158bbsection 153(a)joint development agreementjdasection 131(1a)percentage completion methodsection 10bsection 158b

Judgments citing CIT v. Bharat General Reinsurance Co Ltd.

Sh. Evalueserve.Com Private Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result ground No. 8 of the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4001/DEL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 May 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri I. C. Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishievalueserve.Com Private Vs. Ito, Ltd, Ward-11(2), 701, Guru Apartments, New Delhi Sector-14, Rohni, New Delhi Pan: Aaace8014F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: i. Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv ii. Sh. Sumit Lal ChandaniFor Respondent: Sh. Neeraj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 10ASection 143(3)(ii)Section 234BSection 271Section 92Section 92C

…and, therefore, has to take into account all the relevant material and determine the question as per the statutory regulations. E Valueserve.com Pvt Ltd V ITO ITA 4001/del/2013 AY 2006-07 31. In the case of CIT v. Bharat General Reinsurance Co. Ltd. [1971] 81 ITR 303, the Hon‘ble Delhi High Court observed as under : "It is true that the assessee itself had included that dividend income in is return for the year in question but there is no estoppel in the Income-tax Act and the assessee having itself challenged the validity of taxing the dividend during the year of assessment in question it must be taken that…

ACIT 7(2), Mumbai vs. Rupee Finance and Management P.Tld, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for AYrs

ITA 5122/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri Ashwani Taneja ()

Section 14Section 14ASection 36Section 36(1)(iii)

…as assessee is able to demonstrate that the income returned by him is not in accordance with law and requisite facts in this regard are placed on records. This very issue was decided by Hon’ble Delhi High Court also in the case of Bharat General Insurance Co. 81 ITR 303 (Del). Thus, in our considered view, the assessee must be given an opportunity in the interest of justice and fair play to demonstrate and establish that disallowance made u/s 14A is not in accordance with law. 10. Ld. Counsel has raised various issues to show that disallowance made u/s 14A is contrary to law on account of many reasons which have…

Addl CIT 8(2), Mumbai vs. Mumbai International Airport P. Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 3232/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2008-09

Section 143(3)Section 40

…ssee offered the same to tax during the course of assessment proceedings. Law in this regard is well settled now, and to begin with, reference is made on the landmark judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Bharat General Reinsurance Co Ltd 81 ITR 303 (Del.) Relevant portion from it is reproduced below: 39 M/s. Mumbai International Airport “It was true that the assessee itself had included that dividend income in its return for the year in question, but there was no estoppel in the Income-tax Act and the assessee having itself challenged the validity of taxing the dividend during the year of a…

Mumbai International Airport P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 8(2), Mumbai

ITA 2760/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2008-09

Section 143(3)Section 40

…ssee offered the same to tax during the course of assessment proceedings. Law in this regard is well settled now, and to begin with, reference is made on the landmark judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Bharat General Reinsurance Co Ltd 81 ITR 303 (Del.) Relevant portion from it is reproduced below: 39 M/s. Mumbai International Airport “It was true that the assessee itself had included that dividend income in its return for the year in question, but there was no estoppel in the Income-tax Act and the assessee having itself challenged the validity of taxing the dividend during the year of a…

DCIT 2(3), Mumbai vs. Tata Aig Life Insurance Co. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are dismissed and Cross objections are partly allowed

ITA 1035/MUM/2011[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2016AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri R C Sharma & Shri Amit Shukla

Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 44

…e authorities under the Act are required to assist 1-rim and ensure that only legitimate taxes due are collected (see S.R. Kosti v. CIT [20051 276 JTI'R 1651 (Guj.), CPA Yoosuf v. ITO 119701 77 ITR 237 (Ker.), CIT v. Bharat General Reinsurance Co. Ltd. [1971J 81 ITR 303 (Delhi) CIT v. Archana R. Dhanwatey 119821 136 JTR 3552 (Bom.). 32. If purchaser levy is not permitted under the Act, tax cannot be levied applying the doctrine of estoppel.* (See Dy. CST u. Sreeni Printers [1987] 67 SCC 279). 33. This Court in the case of Nirmala L. Mehta v. A. Balasubramaniam, C17'[20041 269 ITR 13 has held that there cannot be…

Adesh Tyagi, Uttar Pradesh vs. ITO, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 477/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddyassessment Year :2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…a piece of evidence and cannot by itself be a cause of action and that an amount cannot be assessed merely on admission. The worth of the admission has to be considered along with other material. In the case of CIT vs. Bharat General Insurance Company Ltd., 81 ITR 303 (Del), it is laid down that even if the assessee shows income in his return, the Income-tax Officer cannot assess it merely on that account and has to consider the taxability of the amount de-hors the said admission. 5. As the submissions of the assessee vide letter dated 27.12.2011 were not factually controverted by any of the authorities, th…

ACIT 21(2), Mumbai vs. Vivek Mehrotra, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6705/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2010-11 Vivek Mehrotra, Jt Cit 21(2), 7 Plot No.231, C-10 Bldg, 5Th Floor, बना Shri Nilayam Bldg., Pratyakshakar Bhavan, म/ Sion(E) Bkc, Bandra(E) Vs. Mumbai-400022 Mumbai-51 (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aahpm4127B Assessment Year: 2010-11 Jt Cit 21(2), Vivek Mehrotra, C-10 Bldg, 5Th Floor, 7 Plot No.231, बनाम/ Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Shri Nilayam Bldg., Sion(E) Vs. Bkc, Bandra(E) Mumbai-400022 Mumbai-51 (Revenue) (Respondent ) P.A. No. Aahpm4127B Assessee By Shri Nitesh Joshi & Rajiv Mehrotra (Ar) Revenue By Shri Ravinder Sindhu (Dr) सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing: 13/07/2016 10/08/2016 आदेश क" तार"ख /Date Of Order:

Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…acquiescence or waiver of any party or otherwise. It could be done only in accordance with the provisions of law. In this regard, we can also take support from the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Bharat General Reinsurance Co. Ltd. 81 ITR 303 wherein it was held that merely because an assessee has returned a particular income for a particular year, the ITO does not get jurisdiction to assessee the same if in fact that income did not belong to the assessee in that assessment year. It was held in the said case that an assessee can subsequently resile from its return if it is found by the…

Vivek Mehrotra, Mumbai vs. Jt CIT 21(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6383/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2010-11 Vivek Mehrotra, Jt Cit 21(2), 7 Plot No.231, C-10 Bldg, 5Th Floor, बना Shri Nilayam Bldg., Pratyakshakar Bhavan, म/ Sion(E) Bkc, Bandra(E) Vs. Mumbai-400022 Mumbai-51 (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aahpm4127B Assessment Year: 2010-11 Jt Cit 21(2), Vivek Mehrotra, C-10 Bldg, 5Th Floor, 7 Plot No.231, बनाम/ Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Shri Nilayam Bldg., Sion(E) Vs. Bkc, Bandra(E) Mumbai-400022 Mumbai-51 (Revenue) (Respondent ) P.A. No. Aahpm4127B Assessee By Shri Nitesh Joshi & Rajiv Mehrotra (Ar) Revenue By Shri Ravinder Sindhu (Dr) सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing: 13/07/2016 10/08/2016 आदेश क" तार"ख /Date Of Order:

Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…acquiescence or waiver of any party or otherwise. It could be done only in accordance with the provisions of law. In this regard, we can also take support from the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Bharat General Reinsurance Co. Ltd. 81 ITR 303 wherein it was held that merely because an assessee has returned a particular income for a particular year, the ITO does not get jurisdiction to assessee the same if in fact that income did not belong to the assessee in that assessment year. It was held in the said case that an assessee can subsequently resile from its return if it is found by the…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Shyam Sunder Khemka, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5378/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jul 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2009-10 Dcit, Circle-5(1), Room No. Vs. Sh. Shyam Sunder Khemka, 409A, C.R. Building, I.P. E-292, Sarita Vihar, New Estate, New Delhi Delhi Gir/Pan :Aanpk9254H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Smt. Anima Barnwal, Sr.Dr Respondent By Dr. Rakesh Gupta & Sh. Somil Aggarwal, Advocates Date Of Hearing 29.06.2016 Date Of Pronouncement 29.07.2016 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against Order Dated 18/07/2013 Of Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Vii, New Delhi For Assessment Year 2009-10, Raising Following Grounds: I. Whether In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Allowing 100% Deduction U/S 80Ic Instead Of 25% By Considering Return Of Income Which Was Filed After Due Date U/S 139(5) Of The It Act? Ii. Whether In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Accepting The Additional Evidence

Section 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80I

…r filing any revised return—No substantial question of law arises—Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. CIT (2006) 204 CTR (SC) 182 : (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC) distinguished. 14 AY: 2009-10 Hon’ble Delhi High Court, in the case of CIT vs. Bharat General Reinsurance Co. Ltd. 81 ITR 303 (Del.) wherein has held that it was incumbent on the income tax department to find out whether a particular income was assessable or not. Merely because the assessee wrongly included the income in its return for a particular year, it could not confer jurisdiction on the department to tax that income in that year even though legally such income was…

Sanjay Jain, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

The appeal is partly allowed

ITA 146/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jun 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri O.P. Kant Assessment Year: 2010-11 Sanjay Jain, Vs. Acit, Chamber No. 488, Circle 37(1), Delhi High Court Block-Ii. New Delhi. Sher Shah Road, New Delhi. (Pan: Aagpj8607A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ra Bansal & Smt. Prem Lata Bansal, Adv. Department By : Smt. Anima Barnwal, Dr Date Of Hearing : 21.03.2016 Date Of Pronouncement: 15 :06.2016 Order Per I.C. Sudhir:The Assessee Has Questioned First Appellate Order On The Following Grounds: 1. That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.16,70,574/- Made By The Assessing Officer To The Long Term Capital Gain Declared By The Assessee At Rs.1,47,823/-. Since The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer Is Contrary To Law & Therefore, Liable To Be Set Aside. 2. That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Ignoring The Cost Of Improvement While Calculating Long Term Capital Gain Earned By The Assessee On Transfer Of Property.

For Appellant: Shri RA Bansal & Smt. Prem LataFor Respondent: Smt. Anima Barnwal, DR
Section 28Section 37Section 40A(3)Section 48Section 54

…h Court have held that there was a duty on the part of ITO to consider whether the assessee was entitled to .1 deduction from the income from other sources though no such specific claim was made by the assessee. In CIT vs Bharat General Re-insurance Co. Ltd. (81 ITR 303), Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court have held that "the fact that the assessee had itself included the income in the return for the AY 1958-59 was of no effect; there was no estoppel and the assessee having itself challenged the validity of taxing the dividend for that assessment year, it must be taken that it had resiled from the position which…

ITO 10(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Lionbridge Technologies P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 290/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. A.D. Jainand Sh. N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: S/Sh. Ajay Vohra. Sr.Advocate & N.K. Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Sh. N.K.Chand, CIT(DR) & Jitendra Yadav

…”, 229 ITR 383(SC) iv) “CIT vs. Enron Expat Services Ind.”, 327 ITR 626 (Uttrakhand) v) “R.B.Jessa Ram Fateh Chand vs. CIT”, 81 ITR 409 (All.) vi) “Pandit Seho Nath Prasad Sharma vs. CIT”, 66 ITR 647 (Del.) vii) “CIT vs. Bharat General Reinsurance Co. Ltd. ”, 81 ITR 303 (Del). viii) “DCIT vs. Quark Systems Pvt. Ltd.”, ITA No.s 100 & 115/Chd/2009 (SB) [approved by the Hon’ble P & H Court). ix) Honeywell Autoation India Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT”, (ITA No.4/PN/08). x) Sapient Corporation Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT ( ITA No. 5263/Del/2010) xi) DCIT vs. BP India Services Pvt. Ltd. ( ITA No. 4425/Mum/2010). So far as regards th…

Lionbridge Technologies P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO 8(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 7415/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. A.D. Jainand Sh. N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: S/Sh. Ajay Vohra. Sr.Advocate & N.K. Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Sh. N.K.Chand, CIT(DR) & Jitendra Yadav

…”, 229 ITR 383(SC) iv) “CIT vs. Enron Expat Services Ind.”, 327 ITR 626 (Uttrakhand) v) “R.B.Jessa Ram Fateh Chand vs. CIT”, 81 ITR 409 (All.) vi) “Pandit Seho Nath Prasad Sharma vs. CIT”, 66 ITR 647 (Del.) vii) “CIT vs. Bharat General Reinsurance Co. Ltd. ”, 81 ITR 303 (Del). viii) “DCIT vs. Quark Systems Pvt. Ltd.”, ITA No.s 100 & 115/Chd/2009 (SB) [approved by the Hon’ble P & H Court). ix) Honeywell Autoation India Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT”, (ITA No.4/PN/08). x) Sapient Corporation Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT ( ITA No. 5263/Del/2010) xi) DCIT vs. BP India Services Pvt. Ltd. ( ITA No. 4425/Mum/2010). So far as regards th…

Lionbridge Technologies P. Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO RG 8(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 668/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. A.D. Jainand Sh. N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: S/Sh. Ajay Vohra. Sr.Advocate & N.K. Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Sh. N.K.Chand, CIT(DR) & Jitendra Yadav

…”, 229 ITR 383(SC) iv) “CIT vs. Enron Expat Services Ind.”, 327 ITR 626 (Uttrakhand) v) “R.B.Jessa Ram Fateh Chand vs. CIT”, 81 ITR 409 (All.) vi) “Pandit Seho Nath Prasad Sharma vs. CIT”, 66 ITR 647 (Del.) vii) “CIT vs. Bharat General Reinsurance Co. Ltd. ”, 81 ITR 303 (Del). viii) “DCIT vs. Quark Systems Pvt. Ltd.”, ITA No.s 100 & 115/Chd/2009 (SB) [approved by the Hon’ble P & H Court). ix) Honeywell Autoation India Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT”, (ITA No.4/PN/08). x) Sapient Corporation Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT ( ITA No. 5263/Del/2010) xi) DCIT vs. BP India Services Pvt. Ltd. ( ITA No. 4425/Mum/2010). So far as regards th…

ITO 8(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Lionbridge Technologies P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1375/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. A.D. Jainand Sh. N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: S/Sh. Ajay Vohra. Sr.Advocate & N.K. Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Sh. N.K.Chand, CIT(DR) & Jitendra Yadav

…”, 229 ITR 383(SC) iv) “CIT vs. Enron Expat Services Ind.”, 327 ITR 626 (Uttrakhand) v) “R.B.Jessa Ram Fateh Chand vs. CIT”, 81 ITR 409 (All.) vi) “Pandit Seho Nath Prasad Sharma vs. CIT”, 66 ITR 647 (Del.) vii) “CIT vs. Bharat General Reinsurance Co. Ltd. ”, 81 ITR 303 (Del). viii) “DCIT vs. Quark Systems Pvt. Ltd.”, ITA No.s 100 & 115/Chd/2009 (SB) [approved by the Hon’ble P & H Court). ix) Honeywell Autoation India Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT”, (ITA No.4/PN/08). x) Sapient Corporation Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT ( ITA No. 5263/Del/2010) xi) DCIT vs. BP India Services Pvt. Ltd. ( ITA No. 4425/Mum/2010). So far as regards th…

DCIT Cen Cir 9, Mumbai vs. Tribhovandas Bhimji Zaveri (Delhi) P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year

ITA 2861/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Amarjit Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.2250 & 2251/Mum/2013 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2010-11) M/S Tribhovandas Bhimji बनाम/ Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle 9, Zaveri (Delhi) Pvt.Ltd., Vs. Room No.806, Ground Floor, Old C G O Annexe Bldg, Somnath Apartments, M K Road, Marine Lines, Ram Mandir Road, Mumbai-400020 Vile Parle (E), Mumbai-400057 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 69

…d, the authorities under the Act are required to assist 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 an…

DCIT Cen Cir 9, Mumbai vs. Tribhovandas Bhimji Zaveri (Delhi) P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year

ITA 2860/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Amarjit Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.2250 & 2251/Mum/2013 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2010-11) M/S Tribhovandas Bhimji बनाम/ Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle 9, Zaveri (Delhi) Pvt.Ltd., Vs. Room No.806, Ground Floor, Old C G O Annexe Bldg, Somnath Apartments, M K Road, Marine Lines, Ram Mandir Road, Mumbai-400020 Vile Parle (E), Mumbai-400057 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 69

…d, the authorities under the Act are required to assist 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 an…

Tribhuvandas Bhimji Zaveri (Delhi ) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 9, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year

ITA 2251/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Amarjit Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.2250 & 2251/Mum/2013 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2010-11) M/S Tribhovandas Bhimji बनाम/ Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle 9, Zaveri (Delhi) Pvt.Ltd., Vs. Room No.806, Ground Floor, Old C G O Annexe Bldg, Somnath Apartments, M K Road, Marine Lines, Ram Mandir Road, Mumbai-400020 Vile Parle (E), Mumbai-400057 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 69

…d, the authorities under the Act are required to assist 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 an…

Tribhuvandas Bhimji Zaveri (Delhi ) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 9, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year

ITA 2250/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Amarjit Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.2250 & 2251/Mum/2013 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2010-11) M/S Tribhovandas Bhimji बनाम/ Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle 9, Zaveri (Delhi) Pvt.Ltd., Vs. Room No.806, Ground Floor, Old C G O Annexe Bldg, Somnath Apartments, M K Road, Marine Lines, Ram Mandir Road, Mumbai-400020 Vile Parle (E), Mumbai-400057 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 69

…d, the authorities under the Act are required to assist 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 an…

Mukul Rohatgi, New Delhi vs. JCIT, New Delhi

The appeal is allowed

ITA 998/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Oct 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri Laxmi Prashad Sahu Assessment Year: 2008-09 Mukul Rohatgi, Vs. Jcit, 59- Sunder Nagar, Range-37, New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aacpr4789B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri P.C. Yadav, Adv. Respondent By: Shri P.Damkanunjna, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 19 .08.2015 Date Of Pronouncement: 14:10.2015 Order Per I.C. Sudhir:The Assessee Has Questioned First Appellate Order Mainly On The Following Grounds (Revised) : 1. That The Order Of The Learned Cit(Appeals) Is Bad In Law & On Facts: 2. That The Learned Cit(Appeals) Has Erred In Confirming The Assessment Of The Income Of The Assessee At Rs.18.63,90,250 As Against The Returned Income Of Rs.18,54,95,430/-/ 3. That Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Cit(Appeals) Has Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Rs.1,18,675 Out Of The Interest Expenses Incurred On Borrowed Funds Pertaining To Higher Purchase Of Car.

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Yadav, AdvFor Respondent: Shri P.Damkanunjna, Sr. DR
Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH “E” NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI I.C. SUDHIR AND SHRI LAXMI PRASHAD SAHU Assessment Year: 2008-09 Mukul Rohatgi, vs. JCIT, 59- Sunder Nagar, Range-37, New Delhi. New Delhi. (PAN: AACPR4789B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri P.C. Yadav, Adv. Respondent by: Shri P.Damkanunjna, Sr. DR Date of hearing : 19 .08.2015 Date of pronouncement: 14:10.2015 ORDER PER I.C. SUDHIR: JUDICIAL MEMBER The assessee has questioned First Appellate Order mainly on the following grounds (revised) : 1. That the order of the Learned CIT(Appeals) is bad in law and on facts: 2. Th…

DCIT 7(2), Mumbai vs. Reliance Life Science Life Science P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai

Accordingly, this ground is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2061/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Oct 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Ashwani Taneja.

For Appellant: Shri Arvind Sonde & MsFor Respondent: Shri Jeetendra Kumar, D.R
Section 14ASection 35Section 37(1)Section 40

…denied to them merely on technical grounds. The state authorities cannot adopt the attitude which private litigants might adopt. Further, we place our reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Bharat General Reinsurance Co Ltd 81 ITR 303 (Del.) Relevant portion is reproduced below: “It was true that the assessee itself had included that dividend income in its return for the year in question, but there was no estoppel in the Income-tax Act and the assessee having itself challenged the validity of taxing the dividend during the year of assessment in question, it must be taken that…