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.

Economical Credit & Construction Co. Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 8(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 6888/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND M.BALAGANESH (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Neelesh Kumar Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vipul Kashyap, SR. DR
Section 234B

…nsideration, for arriving the profit on sale of land(s) arbitrarily. 4. Reiterating written submissions precisely as above, the ld. AR has also placed reliance on the judgment of High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs. Bharat General Reinsurance Comp. Ltd. 81 ITR 303 (Del) and submitted that the income accrued to the assessee should be taxed in the year of accrual of income and not in the other year as per choice of Assessing Officer. Therefore he finally prayed that the addition made by Assessing Officer may kindly be deleted. 5. Replying to the above the ld. Senior DR supported the orders of the authorities…

Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation)-2 vs. Heidrick and Struggles Inc

ITA - 396 / 2023HC Delhi25 Jul 2023
Section 143(1)Section 154

…ITA 396/2023 Pg 1 of 6 $~83 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 25.07.2023 + ITA 396/2023 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-2 ..... Appellant Through: Mr Sanjay Kumar, Senior Standing Counsel with Ms Easha Kadian and Ms Hemlata Rawat, Standing Counsel. versus HEIDRICK AND STRUGGLES INC. ..... Respondent Through: Mr Rohit Tiwari, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA [Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per re…

Prashant Chandra Sadh, Mumbai vs. ITO International Tax-4(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 619/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleprashant Chandrasadh, Ito,(Intltax),C4(2)(1), C-1804, Oberoi Woods, Room.No.1708, बनाम/ Off Western Express Air India Building, Vs. Highway,Goregaon East, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400063. Mumba-400021. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Biips5544N (""थ" / Respondent) (अपीलाथ" /Appellant)

For Appellant: Ms.Kinjal Bhuta.ARFor Respondent: Mr.Soumendu Kumar Dash.DR
Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 194ISection 68

…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 1 (Guj.), CPA Yoosuf v. ITO [1970] 77 ITR 237 (Ker.), CIT v. Bharat General Reinsurance Co. Ltd. [1971] 81 ITR 303 (Delhi), 5 | P a g e ITA 619/Mum/2022 Prashant Chandra Sadh. Mumbai CIT v. Archana R. Dhanwatey [1982] 136 ITR 3552 (Bom.). We are attaching the sale agreement for sale of flat valued at Rs.61,00,000/- (Annexure B) and purchase agreement (Annexure C) and the investment made in new flat purchased during the year (Annexure D). In view of above,…

M/S. Religare Enterprise Ltd., Noida vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 5116/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 May 2023AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Princy Singla, Sr. DR
Section 10(34)Section 14ASection 37

…estoppel against law. Accordingly, the applicant can, notwithstanding suo-motu disallowance made, raise ground seeking correct computation of disallowance under section 14A of the Act [refer NTPC: 229 ITR 383 (SC), CIT vs. Bharat General Reinsurance Co. Ltd.: 81 ITR 303 (Del.), SAIL DSP VR Employees Association 1998 V. UOI : 262 ITR 638 (Cal.), Pt. Sheo Nath Prasad Sharma vs. CIT: 66 ITR 647 (All), Indo Java & Co. vs. ITO: 30 ITD 161 (Del SB)]. It is pertinent to mention here that similar grounds were raised and allowed in the case of appellant/ applicant itself for preceding assessment year 2009-10 in ITA No.15…

Thomson Press (India) Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Spl. Range- 9, New Delhi

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

ITA 6543/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Apr 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Salil Agarwal, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Takiyar, Sr. DR
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 43B

…s have to be considered for disallowance which yield exempt income. The Ld. CIT(A) did not appreciate, though the revision made by the assessee was in accord with the ratio of decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Bharat General Reinsurance Co. Ltd. 81 ITR 303 (Delhi). 4.4 The Ld. DR supported the order of the Ld. CIT(A). 5. We have heard the rival submissions, considered the arguments of the parties and perused the material in the records. It is observed that before the Ld. AO the assessee submitted, inter alia that during the year the assessee received exempt income of Rs. 2802/- by way of dividend.…

Young Women'S Christian Association of Delhi, New Delhi vs. ITO (Exemption), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1584/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Apr 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Saten Sethi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Takiyar, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)

…. AO to grant refund of the tax paid in access under the circumstances enumerated therein. 6.3 The Ld. AR submitted that there is no estoppel against the statute and referred to the following decisions:- (i) CIT vs. Bharat General Reinsurance Co. Ltd. (1971) 81 ITR 303 (Del) (ii) SR Kosti vs. CIT (2005) 276 ITR 165 (Guj) (iii) Nirmla L Mehta vs. A. Balasubramaniam 269 ITR 1 (Bom) 6.4 Reference was also made to the decision of Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in Srikant G. Shah vs. ITO (2007) 108 ITD 577 (Mum). 6.5 In support of the assessee’s case reliance was placed on the following decisions also:- (i) Kalvindee…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Guwahati vs. Abci Infrastructures Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year

ITA 2/GTY/2023[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Guwahati05 Apr 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 44A

…eme Court of India Page 68 of 114 I.T.A. No.: 43/GTY/2022 I.T.A. No.: 2/GTY/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 I.T.A. Nos.: 37, 38 & 39/GTY/2022 AYs: 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20 ABCI Infrastructure Private Limited. (ii) CIT vs. Bharat General Reinsurance Co. Ltd. 81 ITR 303 (Del) - Delhi High Court (iii) Balmukund Acharya vs. DCIT [310 ITR 310] – Bombay High Court (iv) Nirmala L. Mehta vs. CIT [(2004) 269 ITR 001] – Bombay High Court” 83. Finally, based on the ratio laid down in the above referred judgments, ld. CIT(A) has held that the observation of the ld. AO that the assessee having not claimed the deduction in i…

Abci Infrastructures Private Limited, Kolkata vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Guwahati

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year

ITA 43/GTY/2022[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Guwahati05 Apr 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 44A

…eme Court of India Page 68 of 114 I.T.A. No.: 43/GTY/2022 I.T.A. No.: 2/GTY/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 I.T.A. Nos.: 37, 38 & 39/GTY/2022 AYs: 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20 ABCI Infrastructure Private Limited. (ii) CIT vs. Bharat General Reinsurance Co. Ltd. 81 ITR 303 (Del) - Delhi High Court (iii) Balmukund Acharya vs. DCIT [310 ITR 310] – Bombay High Court (iv) Nirmala L. Mehta vs. CIT [(2004) 269 ITR 001] – Bombay High Court” 83. Finally, based on the ratio laid down in the above referred judgments, ld. CIT(A) has held that the observation of the ld. AO that the assessee having not claimed the deduction in i…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Guwahati vs. Abci Infrastructures Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year

ITA 39/GTY/2022[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Guwahati05 Apr 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 44A

…eme Court of India Page 68 of 114 I.T.A. No.: 43/GTY/2022 I.T.A. No.: 2/GTY/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 I.T.A. Nos.: 37, 38 & 39/GTY/2022 AYs: 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20 ABCI Infrastructure Private Limited. (ii) CIT vs. Bharat General Reinsurance Co. Ltd. 81 ITR 303 (Del) - Delhi High Court (iii) Balmukund Acharya vs. DCIT [310 ITR 310] – Bombay High Court (iv) Nirmala L. Mehta vs. CIT [(2004) 269 ITR 001] – Bombay High Court” 83. Finally, based on the ratio laid down in the above referred judgments, ld. CIT(A) has held that the observation of the ld. AO that the assessee having not claimed the deduction in i…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Guwahati vs. Abci Infrastructures Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year

ITA 38/GTY/2022[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Guwahati05 Apr 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 44A

…eme Court of India Page 68 of 114 I.T.A. No.: 43/GTY/2022 I.T.A. No.: 2/GTY/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 I.T.A. Nos.: 37, 38 & 39/GTY/2022 AYs: 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20 ABCI Infrastructure Private Limited. (ii) CIT vs. Bharat General Reinsurance Co. Ltd. 81 ITR 303 (Del) - Delhi High Court (iii) Balmukund Acharya vs. DCIT [310 ITR 310] – Bombay High Court (iv) Nirmala L. Mehta vs. CIT [(2004) 269 ITR 001] – Bombay High Court” 83. Finally, based on the ratio laid down in the above referred judgments, ld. CIT(A) has held that the observation of the ld. AO that the assessee having not claimed the deduction in i…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Guwahati vs. Abci Infrastructures Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year

ITA 37/GTY/2022[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Guwahati05 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 44A

…eme Court of India Page 68 of 114 I.T.A. No.: 43/GTY/2022 I.T.A. No.: 2/GTY/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 I.T.A. Nos.: 37, 38 & 39/GTY/2022 AYs: 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20 ABCI Infrastructure Private Limited. (ii) CIT vs. Bharat General Reinsurance Co. Ltd. 81 ITR 303 (Del) - Delhi High Court (iii) Balmukund Acharya vs. DCIT [310 ITR 310] – Bombay High Court (iv) Nirmala L. Mehta vs. CIT [(2004) 269 ITR 001] – Bombay High Court” 83. Finally, based on the ratio laid down in the above referred judgments, ld. CIT(A) has held that the observation of the ld. AO that the assessee having not claimed the deduction in i…

Madhu Kumar Patel, Hyderabad vs. ADIT, (Int. Taxn)-2, Hyderabad

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

ITA 395/HYD/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year:2015-16 Shri Madhu Kumar Patel Vs. A.D.I.T (Intl.Taxation)-2 Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Bvdpp3797G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, Ca Revenue By: Shri Rajendra Kumar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 10/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 26/12/2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19.7.2022 Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The I.T. Act For The A.Y 2015-16. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & A Resident Of The U.K. He Filed His Return Of Income On 31.08.2015 Declaring Total Income At Rs.2,91,07,000/- As Income From Long Term Capital Gain.

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 147Section 148Section 2(47)(v)

…ITA No 395 of 2022 Madhu Kumar Patel Hyderabad आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘ B ‘ Bench, Hyderabad Before Shri R.K. Panda, Accountant Member AND Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Judicial Member Assessment Year:2015-16 Shri Madhu Kumar Patel Vs. A.D.I.T (Intl.Taxation)-2 Hyderabad Hyderabad PAN:BVDPP3797G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, CA Revenue by: Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT(DR) Date of hearing: 10/11/2022 Date of pronouncement: 26/12/2022 ORDER Per R.K. Panda, A.M This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 19.7.…

Indian Sulphacid Industries Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle, Kurukshetra

ITA 296/CHANDI/2020[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Chandigarh15 Dec 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

For Appellant: Sh.Pariskhit Aggarwal, CA and Sh. Sunny Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Nangia, CIT DR

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ,च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, “A”, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SMT. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.296/CHD/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2016-17 Indian Sulphacid Industries बनाम The DCIT, Limited, Circle 110, Daryaganj, Ground Floor, Kurukshetra Near Gurudwara, New Delhi 110002 "थायीलेखासं./PAN NO: AAACI3718E अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे/Assessee by : Sh.Pariskhit Aggarwal, CA and Sh. Sunny Jain, CA राज"वक"ओरसे/ Revenue by : Sh. Vivek Nangia, CIT DR सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date o…

Shantinath Detergents Pvt. Ltd, Kolkata vs. DCIT, CC-3(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 467/KOL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Nov 2022AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Amal Shudhir Kamat, CIT
Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 154Section 250

…e within the contemplation of law, the assessee may bring the same to the notice of the assessing officer, which if satisfied, may grant the assessee necessary relief and refund the tax paid in excess, if any. 19. In CIT v. Bharat General Reinsurance Co. Ltd. 81 ITR 303 (Del), this court held that merely because the assessee wrongly included the income 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. 20. The Bombay High Court in Balmukund Acharyavs DCIT, CIT and UOI 310 ITR 310 held th…

M/S. Trishul Buildtech & Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bengaluru

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 109/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Nov 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri A. Shankar, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R
Section 250

…ed, 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 a…

M/S. Trishul Buildtech & Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bengaluru

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 108/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri A. Shankar, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R
Section 250

…ed, 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 a…

M/S. Trishul Buildtech & Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bengaluru

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 107/BANG/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri A. Shankar, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R
Section 250

…ed, 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 a…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circel-2(1), Bangalore vs. Sri Mathikere Ramaiah Seetharam, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the COs filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 544/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H. Nagin Khincha &For Respondent: Shri M. Mathivanan, D.R
Section 131Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 45(2)

…ed, 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.). ITA Nos.542 to 544/Bang/2021 & CO Nos.17 to 19/Bang/2021 Sri Mathikere Ramaiah Seetharam, Bangalore Page 81 of 96 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. Th…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circel-2(1), Bangalore vs. Sri Mathikere Ramaiah Seetharam, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the COs filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 543/BANG/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H. Nagin Khincha &For Respondent: Shri M. Mathivanan, D.R
Section 131Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 45(2)

…ed, 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.). ITA Nos.542 to 544/Bang/2021 & CO Nos.17 to 19/Bang/2021 Sri Mathikere Ramaiah Seetharam, Bangalore Page 81 of 96 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. Th…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circel-2(1), Bangalore vs. Sri Mathikere Ramaiah Seetharam, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the COs filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 542/BANG/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H. Nagin Khincha &For Respondent: Shri M. Mathivanan, D.R
Section 131Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 45(2)

…ed, 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.). ITA Nos.542 to 544/Bang/2021 & CO Nos.17 to 19/Bang/2021 Sri Mathikere Ramaiah Seetharam, Bangalore Page 81 of 96 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. Th…