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 367,154 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.

Addl. CIT, Special Range-8, New Delhi vs. St Microelectronics Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and the cross-objection of

ITA 4774/DEL/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Aug 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year : 2005-06 Addl. Cit, Vs St Micro Electronics Pvt.Ltd., Special Range-8, 202-206,Tolstoy House, 15, New Delhi. Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi-110001. Pan-Aaacs3406M Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 92C

…st the assessee in requesting for exclusion of such company. Reliance was placed on the decision rendered in the cases of CIT vs C.Parekh & Co.(India) 13 | P a g e ITA No. 4774/Del/2017 & C.O-54/Del/2018 Ltd. 229 ITR 661; Bharat General Reinsurance Co.Ltd. 81 ITR 303. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that Bodhtree Consulting Ltd. cannot be an appropriate comparable for the reasons that the company had not shown any significant related party transactions. Further, it was contended that the company was functionally different. It was contended that the company engaged in service related to e-paper and da…

Sri. B. Rudragouda, Bellary vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1, Bellary

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 315/BANG/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Apr 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri Chythanya K.K., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 37Section 37(1)

…he following decisions:- CIT v. Shree Rama Multi Tech Ltd., 403 ITR 426 (SC) CIT v. K. Venkatesh Dutt, 319 ITR 331 (Kar) Alapati Venkataramiah v. CIT, 57 ITR 185 (SC) CIT v. C. Parakh & Co. (I) Ltd., 29 ITR 661 (SC) CIT v. Bharat General Reinsurance Co. Ltd., 81 ITR 303 (Del) CIT v. Rewari Central Co-op. Bank Ltd., 263 ITR 598 (P&H) CIT v. S.E. Railway Employees Co-op. Credit Society Ltd., 390 ITR 524 (Cal) CIT vs. M.R.P. Firm [1965] 56 ITR 67 (SC); Sanchez Capital Services (P.) Ltd vs ITO 26 Taxmann.com 61 ITO vs Alumeco India Extrusion Ltd. TS-143-ITAT-2013(HYD)- TP [Para 16] Shell India Markets (P.) Ltd. v. As…

Sri. B. Rudragouda, Bellary vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1, Bellary

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 314/BANG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Apr 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri Chythanya K.K., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 37Section 37(1)

…he following decisions:- CIT v. Shree Rama Multi Tech Ltd., 403 ITR 426 (SC) CIT v. K. Venkatesh Dutt, 319 ITR 331 (Kar) Alapati Venkataramiah v. CIT, 57 ITR 185 (SC) CIT v. C. Parakh & Co. (I) Ltd., 29 ITR 661 (SC) CIT v. Bharat General Reinsurance Co. Ltd., 81 ITR 303 (Del) CIT v. Rewari Central Co-op. Bank Ltd., 263 ITR 598 (P&H) CIT v. S.E. Railway Employees Co-op. Credit Society Ltd., 390 ITR 524 (Cal) CIT vs. M.R.P. Firm [1965] 56 ITR 67 (SC); Sanchez Capital Services (P.) Ltd vs ITO 26 Taxmann.com 61 ITO vs Alumeco India Extrusion Ltd. TS-143-ITAT-2013(HYD)- TP [Para 16] Shell India Markets (P.) Ltd. v. As…

Hero Motocrop Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 11(1), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 9187/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Apr 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2015-16

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144CSection 145ASection 80ISection 92C

…s. Geo Industries and Insecticides (I) Pvt Ltd: 234 ITR 541 (Mad) Subhash Chandra Sarvesh Kumar v. CIT: 132 ITR 619 (All.) CIT v Simon Carves Ltd.: 105 ITR 212 (SC) Anchor Pressings (P) Ltd. vs. CIT and Ors.: 161 ITR 159 (SC) CIT v Bharat General Reinsurance: 81 ITR 303 (Del) CIT vs. Hiranand: 136 Taxman 66 (Raj) CIT v. Ahmedabad Keiser-e-Hind Mills Co. Ltd.: 128 ITR 486 (Guj.) CIT v Archana R. Dhanwatay: 136 ITR 355 (Bom.) Sneh Lata Jain vs. CIT: 140 Taxman 156 (J&K) PCIT v. Oracle (OFSS) BPO Services Ltd.:[2019] 102 taxmann.com 396 (Del.) CIT v. Bharat Aluminium Co Ltd: 303 ITR 256 (Del) CIT v. Ramco Internatio…

M/S Vvd Constructions Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, ITA No.3384/Bang/2018 is allowed, while ITA Nos

ITA 3388/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H. Guruswamy, ITPFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 36(1)(iii)

…her; (b) freely advise them when approached by them as to their rights and liabilities and as to the procedure to be adopted for claiming refunds and reliefs". 8. Further, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Bharat General Reinsurance Co. Ltd., 83 ITR 303 (Del) held as follows:- “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 it had resiled from th…

M/S Vvd Constructions Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, ITA No.3384/Bang/2018 is allowed, while ITA Nos

ITA 3387/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H. Guruswamy, ITPFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 36(1)(iii)

…her; (b) freely advise them when approached by them as to their rights and liabilities and as to the procedure to be adopted for claiming refunds and reliefs". 8. Further, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Bharat General Reinsurance Co. Ltd., 83 ITR 303 (Del) held as follows:- “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 it had resiled from th…

M/S Vvd Constructions Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, ITA No.3384/Bang/2018 is allowed, while ITA Nos

ITA 3386/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H. Guruswamy, ITPFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 36(1)(iii)

…her; (b) freely advise them when approached by them as to their rights and liabilities and as to the procedure to be adopted for claiming refunds and reliefs". 8. Further, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Bharat General Reinsurance Co. Ltd., 83 ITR 303 (Del) held as follows:- “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 it had resiled from th…

M/S Vvd Constructions Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, ITA No.3384/Bang/2018 is allowed, while ITA Nos

ITA 3385/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H. Guruswamy, ITPFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 36(1)(iii)

…her; (b) freely advise them when approached by them as to their rights and liabilities and as to the procedure to be adopted for claiming refunds and reliefs". 8. Further, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Bharat General Reinsurance Co. Ltd., 83 ITR 303 (Del) held as follows:- “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 it had resiled from th…

M/S Vvd Constructions Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, ITA No.3384/Bang/2018 is allowed, while ITA Nos

ITA 3384/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H. Guruswamy, ITPFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 36(1)(iii)

…her; (b) freely advise them when approached by them as to their rights and liabilities and as to the procedure to be adopted for claiming refunds and reliefs". 8. Further, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Bharat General Reinsurance Co. Ltd., 83 ITR 303 (Del) held as follows:- “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 it had resiled from th…

M/S. Dabur India Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl.CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6525/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Feb 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anupam Kant Garg, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80GSection 80ISection 92CSection 92E

…legal stand, it would not operate as estoppel against the assessee to revise such stand and make a legitimate claim otherwise entitled in law (No estoppel in law):- i) CIT v. Shelly Products: 261 ITR 367 (SC); ii) CIT v. Bharat General Re-Insurance Co. Ltd.: 81 ITR 303 (Del.); iii) HCL Technologies vs ACIT : 377 ITR 483 (Del); iv) CTI vs C. Parakh & Co (India) Ltd: 29 ITR 661 (SC); v) CIT vs VMRP Firm: 56 ITR 67 (SC); vi) Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala: 91, ITR 18 (SC); vii) Pt. Sheo Nath Prasad Sharma v. CIT : 66 ITR 647 (All.); viii) Abdul Qayume vs CIT: I 84 ITR 404 (All); ix) Nirmala…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Dabur India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6256/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Feb 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anupam Kant Garg, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80GSection 80ISection 92CSection 92E

…legal stand, it would not operate as estoppel against the assessee to revise such stand and make a legitimate claim otherwise entitled in law (No estoppel in law):- i) CIT v. Shelly Products: 261 ITR 367 (SC); ii) CIT v. Bharat General Re-Insurance Co. Ltd.: 81 ITR 303 (Del.); iii) HCL Technologies vs ACIT : 377 ITR 483 (Del); iv) CTI vs C. Parakh & Co (India) Ltd: 29 ITR 661 (SC); v) CIT vs VMRP Firm: 56 ITR 67 (SC); vi) Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala: 91, ITR 18 (SC); vii) Pt. Sheo Nath Prasad Sharma v. CIT : 66 ITR 647 (All.); viii) Abdul Qayume vs CIT: I 84 ITR 404 (All); ix) Nirmala…

M/S. Dabur India Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl.CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3241/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Feb 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anupam Kant Garg, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80GSection 80ISection 92CSection 92E

…legal stand, it would not operate as estoppel against the assessee to revise such stand and make a legitimate claim otherwise entitled in law (No estoppel in law):- i) CIT v. Shelly Products: 261 ITR 367 (SC); ii) CIT v. Bharat General Re-Insurance Co. Ltd.: 81 ITR 303 (Del.); iii) HCL Technologies vs ACIT : 377 ITR 483 (Del); iv) CTI vs C. Parakh & Co (India) Ltd: 29 ITR 661 (SC); v) CIT vs VMRP Firm: 56 ITR 67 (SC); vi) Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala: 91, ITR 18 (SC); vii) Pt. Sheo Nath Prasad Sharma v. CIT : 66 ITR 647 (All.); viii) Abdul Qayume vs CIT: I 84 ITR 404 (All); ix) Nirmala…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Dabur India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3114/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Feb 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anupam Kant Garg, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80GSection 80ISection 92CSection 92E

…legal stand, it would not operate as estoppel against the assessee to revise such stand and make a legitimate claim otherwise entitled in law (No estoppel in law):- i) CIT v. Shelly Products: 261 ITR 367 (SC); ii) CIT v. Bharat General Re-Insurance Co. Ltd.: 81 ITR 303 (Del.); iii) HCL Technologies vs ACIT : 377 ITR 483 (Del); iv) CTI vs C. Parakh & Co (India) Ltd: 29 ITR 661 (SC); v) CIT vs VMRP Firm: 56 ITR 67 (SC); vi) Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala: 91, ITR 18 (SC); vii) Pt. Sheo Nath Prasad Sharma v. CIT : 66 ITR 647 (All.); viii) Abdul Qayume vs CIT: I 84 ITR 404 (All); ix) Nirmala…

Prometric Testing Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Gurgaon

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee and the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 499/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jan 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant[Through Video Conferencing]

Section 92C

…red to by Shri Aggarwal. The Tribunal is a fact- finding body and, therefore, has to take into account all the relevant material and determine the question as per the statutory regulations. 31. In the case of CIT vs. Bharat General Reinsurance Co. Ltd. (1971) 81 ITR 303 (Del), the Hon’ble Delhi High Court observed as under : "It is true that the assessee itself had included that dividend income in its return for the year in question but there is no estoppel in the IT 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…

DCIT, Gurgaon vs. M/S. Prometric Testing (P) Ltd., Gurgaon

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee and the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 397/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jan 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant[Through Video Conferencing]

Section 92C

…red to by Shri Aggarwal. The Tribunal is a fact- finding body and, therefore, has to take into account all the relevant material and determine the question as per the statutory regulations. 31. In the case of CIT vs. Bharat General Reinsurance Co. Ltd. (1971) 81 ITR 303 (Del), the Hon’ble Delhi High Court observed as under : "It is true that the assessee itself had included that dividend income in its return for the year in question but there is no estoppel in the IT 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…

Cisco Video Technologies (India) Private Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed and the appeal of the revenue is treated as partly allowed

ITA 597/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Nov 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.476/Bang/2016 Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, D.R
Section 143(3)

…IT(TP)A Nos.476 & 597/Bang/2016 M/s. Synamedia India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(TP)A No.476/Bang/2016 Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/s. Synamedia India Pvt. Ltd. (Earlier known as M/s. Cisco Video Deputy Commissioner of Technologies India Pvt. Ltd.) Income-tax Block 9A & 9B, Pritech Park Vs. Circle -2(1)(1) Special Economic Zone Bangalore Survey No.51-64/4, Sarjapur Outer Ring Road, Bellandur Village PAN NO : AACCN1140K Bangalore-560 103 APPELLANT RESPONDENT IT(TP)A N…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Cisco Video Technologies India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed and the appeal of the revenue is treated as partly allowed

ITA 476/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Nov 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.476/Bang/2016 Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, D.R
Section 143(3)

…IT(TP)A Nos.476 & 597/Bang/2016 M/s. Synamedia India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(TP)A No.476/Bang/2016 Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/s. Synamedia India Pvt. Ltd. (Earlier known as M/s. Cisco Video Deputy Commissioner of Technologies India Pvt. Ltd.) Income-tax Block 9A & 9B, Pritech Park Vs. Circle -2(1)(1) Special Economic Zone Bangalore Survey No.51-64/4, Sarjapur Outer Ring Road, Bellandur Village PAN NO : AACCN1140K Bangalore-560 103 APPELLANT RESPONDENT IT(TP)A N…

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

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 6670/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2020AY 2016-17
Section 132Section 271A

…, 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 l(Bom)(HC) has held that there can…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Religare Securities Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessees is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 574/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2011-12 Religare Securities Ltd., Vs Dcit, 6Th Floor, Prius Global, Circle-21(1), A-3, 4, 5, Plot No.11, Sector-125, Cr Building, Noida. New Delhi. Pan: Aaacf1952D Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit, Vs Religare Securities Ltd., Circle-21(1), . D-3, P-3B, District Centre, Cr Building, Saket, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaacf1952D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate & Ms Tejasvi Jain, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.06.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2020 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: These Are Cross Appeals. The First One Is Filed By The Assessee & The Second One Is Filed By The Revenue & Are Directed Against The Order Dated 11.11.2016 Of The Cit(A)-7, New Delhi, For A.Y. 2011-12. Itas No.230 & 574/Del/2017

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 14ASection 37(1)

…g decisions, he submitted that there is no estopple against the law and it was always open to the assessee to resile from the decision taken under misconception of law:- i) NTPC Ltd. vs. CIT, 229, ITR 383 (SC); ii) CIT vs. Bharat General Reinsurance Co. Ltd., 81 ITR 303 (Del); iii) SAIL DSP VR Employees Association 1998 V. UOI, 262 ITR 638 (Cal); iv) Pt. Sheo Nath Prasad Sharma vs. CIT, 66 ITR 647 (All); and v) Indo Java & Co. vs. ITO, 30 ITD 161 (Del, SB). ITAs No.230 & 574/Del/2017 12. He accordingly, submitted that the assessee can notwithstanding suo motu disallowance at a higher amount, raise ground seekin…

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

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessees is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 230/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2011-12 Religare Securities Ltd., Vs Dcit, 6Th Floor, Prius Global, Circle-21(1), A-3, 4, 5, Plot No.11, Sector-125, Cr Building, Noida. New Delhi. Pan: Aaacf1952D Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit, Vs Religare Securities Ltd., Circle-21(1), . D-3, P-3B, District Centre, Cr Building, Saket, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaacf1952D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate & Ms Tejasvi Jain, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.06.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2020 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: These Are Cross Appeals. The First One Is Filed By The Assessee & The Second One Is Filed By The Revenue & Are Directed Against The Order Dated 11.11.2016 Of The Cit(A)-7, New Delhi, For A.Y. 2011-12. Itas No.230 & 574/Del/2017

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 14ASection 37(1)

…g decisions, he submitted that there is no estopple against the law and it was always open to the assessee to resile from the decision taken under misconception of law:- i) NTPC Ltd. vs. CIT, 229, ITR 383 (SC); ii) CIT vs. Bharat General Reinsurance Co. Ltd., 81 ITR 303 (Del); iii) SAIL DSP VR Employees Association 1998 V. UOI, 262 ITR 638 (Cal); iv) Pt. Sheo Nath Prasad Sharma vs. CIT, 66 ITR 647 (All); and v) Indo Java & Co. vs. ITO, 30 ITD 161 (Del, SB). ITAs No.230 & 574/Del/2017 12. He accordingly, submitted that the assessee can notwithstanding suo motu disallowance at a higher amount, raise ground seekin…