What is (CIT v. C. Parakh & Co. (India) Ltd. authority for?

An assessee is not estopped from claiming a legally permissible deduction merely due to their prior accounting treatment or initial stance taken in the return. The correct legal position regarding an assessee's entitlement to a deduction always prevails, as there can be no estoppel against a statute or settled law.

How many judgments cite (CIT v. C. Parakh & Co. (India) Ltd.?

73 judgments on BharatTax cite (CIT v. C. Parakh & Co. (India) Ltd. (29 ITR 661), spanning 2015 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does (CIT v. C. Parakh & Co. (India) Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 144C(5), Section 234B, Section 234C, Section 250, Section 271AA.

(CIT v. C. Parakh & Co. (India) Ltd. (29 ITR 661)

SARVODAYA SAMAJ KALYAN SANSTHAN,JAMUI vs. CPC , BANGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 563/PAT/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Patna26 Nov 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 10Section 143Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250

…ection 154, and not per the return of income, could be admitted in section 154 proceedings. It is the correct legal position that is relevant, and not the view that the parties may take of their rights in the matter (CIT v. C. Parakh & Co. (India) Ltd. [1956] 29 ITR 661 (SC); Parekh Bros. v. CIT [1984] 150 ITR 105 (Ker)). Also see: Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 363 (SC). Proceedings under the Act, it may be clarified, are not in the nature of a lis (Gadgil (S.S.) v. Lal & Co. [1964] 53 ITR 321 (SC)). 14. For that the appellant is an accredited institution supported by Government, alternate cla…

OAKTON GLOBAL TECHNOLOGY SERVICES CENTRE (I) PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 32/HYD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Bharadawaj, C.AFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 92B

…made. Now, there cannot be an estoppel against statute. If in fact the procedure adopted by the Income-tax Officer was incorrect, the defect is not cured by the attitude taken up by the assessee." 33. In the case of CIT v. C. Parakh & Co. (India) Ltd. [1956] 29 ITR 661, Their Lordships of Supreme Court made the following observations: "On the question of the admissibility of the deduction of Rs. 1,23,719, the contention of the appellant is that as the respondent had itself split up the commission of Rs. 3,12,699 paid to the managing agents, and appropriated Rs. 1,23,719 thereof to the profits earned at Karachi…

OAKTON GLOBAL TECHNOLOGY SERVICES CENTRE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 2130/HYD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Bharadawaj, C.AFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 92B

…made. Now, there cannot be an estoppel against statute. If in fact the procedure adopted by the Income-tax Officer was incorrect, the defect is not cured by the attitude taken up by the assessee." 33. In the case of CIT v. C. Parakh & Co. (India) Ltd. [1956] 29 ITR 661, Their Lordships of Supreme Court made the following observations: "On the question of the admissibility of the deduction of Rs. 1,23,719, the contention of the appellant is that as the respondent had itself split up the commission of Rs. 3,12,699 paid to the managing agents, and appropriated Rs. 1,23,719 thereof to the profits earned at Karachi…

SHRI VEERSHAIV CO. OP. BANK LTD.,KOLHAPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 2, KOLHAPUR , KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 175/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.175/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri A.D. Kulkarni

Section 143(3)Section 250

…t, we do not find any merit in these appeals and petitions which are accordingly, dismissed.” It is also correct to state that there can be no estoppel against a settled position in law [See Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bombay vs. C. Parakh & Co. (India) Ltd. 29 ITR 661 at 665 and Commissioner of Income-Tax, Madras vs. V.MR.P. Firm, Muar (1965) 56 ITR 67.” 10. Thus, reading of the above judgement, we find that a subscription or admission fee normally constitutes a capital receipt and not liable to tax and also transfer of income to reserve fund in compliance with the statutory provisions constitute a charge agai…

AMALGAM FOODS LIMITED,KOCHI vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1, ALAPPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA

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

ITA 561/COCH/2022[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 May 2024AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Amalgam Foods Limited Dy. Cit, Circle-1, Alappuzha Amalgam House, Bristow Road, Vs. Willingdon Island, Kochi-682 002 [Pan:Aabca 8283D] (Assessee) : (Respondent) Assessee By : None Respondent By : Smt. J. M. Jamuna Devi Date Of Hearing : 14.02.2024 : 14.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement O R D E R Per Bench: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee, Directed Against The Order Dated 28.03.2022 By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Income Tax Department [Cit(A)], Dismissing The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting It’S Assessment Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 254 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Dated 26.12.2019, For Assessment Year (Ay) 2001-2002. 2. None Appeared For & On Behalf Of The Assessee-Appellant When The Appeal Was Called Out For Hearing. Taking Note Of The Request Dated 05.02.2024 By Sri R. Srinivasan, Ca, The Learned Counsel For The Assessee, That His Personal Appearance May Be Dispensed With & The Matter Decided After Considering Written Submissions, Enclosed Along With, The Hearing In The Matter Was Proceeded With.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. J. M. Jamuna Devi

Section 143(3)Section 254

…ection being also on different lines, is of no consequence inasmuch as the same is not binding. It is the correct legal position that is relevant, and not the view that the parties may take of their rights in the matter (CIT v. C. Parakh & Co. (I) Ltd. [1956] 29 ITR 661 (SC); Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 363 (SC)). 6. We may finally capsule our findings. The assessee contested the denial of allowance of it’s claim for loss on account of foreign exchange fluctuation, which was for the reason that the same pertained to an earlier year/s, on the ground of crystallization of liability, on paymen…

KATHIKODE CHARITABLE TRUST,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, THRISSUR

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes, and it’s stay petitions dismissed as infructuous

ITA 948/COCH/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin10 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: Shri Jojo, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR

Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2

…h no consequence.’ Here it may also be relevant to clarify that qua an appellate authority, it is the correct legal position that is relevant, and not the view that the parties may take of their rights in the matter (CIT v. C. Parakh & Co. (India) Ltd. [1956] 29 ITR 661 (SC); Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 363 (SC)). 4.5 The premise of the foregoing is that the assessee should get a fair deal and, two, only tax exigible under law is to be levied/collected. The assessee, in our view, has filed the return u/s. 139(4A) in the correct form, i.e., Form-7. It is a charitable trust, even if, prior to…

KATHIKODE CHARITABLE TRUST,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER., THRISSUR

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes, and it’s stay petitions dismissed as infructuous

ITA 947/COCH/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin10 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: Shri Jojo, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR

Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2

…h no consequence.’ Here it may also be relevant to clarify that qua an appellate authority, it is the correct legal position that is relevant, and not the view that the parties may take of their rights in the matter (CIT v. C. Parakh & Co. (India) Ltd. [1956] 29 ITR 661 (SC); Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 363 (SC)). 4.5 The premise of the foregoing is that the assessee should get a fair deal and, two, only tax exigible under law is to be levied/collected. The assessee, in our view, has filed the return u/s. 139(4A) in the correct form, i.e., Form-7. It is a charitable trust, even if, prior to…

THE KERALA MINERALS AND METALS LTD.,KOLLAM vs. THE DICT, KOLLAM

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 96/COCH/2022[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Mar 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasthe Kerala Minerals & Metals Ltd. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Sankaramangalam Circle - 1, Kollam Chavara, Kollam 691001 Vs. [Pan:Aaact8118R] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev R., CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 154Section 244A

…Y 2005-06, the next year, or in fact in any other later year, following the process of law. It is the correct legal position that is relevant, and not the view that the parties may take of their rights in the matter: CIT v. C. Parakh & Co. (India) Ltd. [1956] 29 ITR 661 (SC) (also see: Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 363 (SC)). No refund would have arisen to the assessee without it applying for the same upon accepting the dismissal of it’s claim for deduction for AY 2004-05 by the Hon'ble Court. That the AO’s satisfaction is also, in part, on account of the observation by the Hon'ble High Court,…

UNNIKRISHNAN. K,KUNNAMPALLY vs. THE ITO WARD 2, TIRUR

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed on the aforesaid terms, and his stay petition dismissed

ITA 955/COCH/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Dr. Seethalakshmi

For Appellant: Shri Arun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 148(1)

…, his order is in substance to that effect. Even otherwise, speaking in strict legal terms, it is the correct legal position that is relevant, and not the view that the parties may take of their rights in the matter (CIT v. C. Parakh & Co. (India) Ltd. [1956] 29 ITR 661 (SC); Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 363 (SC)). As, however, that would only imply that the assessment is yet not determined qua the two additions appealed against by the assessee, pending before him, the same were decided, on merits, as directed by the Tribunal, meeting both, the assessee’s challenge thereto, including pursuant…

THE NEHRU MEMORIAL EDUCATION SOCIETY,KANHANGAD vs. ITO EXEMPTIONS, KANNUR

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 159/COCH/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin07 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Dr. S. Seethalakshmithe Nehru Memorial The Income Tax Officer Education Society (Exemptions), Kannur Lakshmi Nivas Vs. Kanhangad - 671315 Kasaragod [Pan:Aabtt0633M] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Veeramani, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 10Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(d)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 2

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountant Member and Dr. S. Seethalakshmi, Judicial Member The Nehru Memorial The Income Tax Officer Education Society (Exemptions), Kannur Lakshmi Nivas vs. Kanhangad - 671315 Kasaragod [PAN:AABTT0633M] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri P.M. Veeramani, CA Respondent by: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing: 12.12.2023 Date of Pronouncement: 07.03.2024 O R D E R Per: Sanjay Arora, AM This is an appeal by the Assessee directed against the disallowance of assessee’s appeal contesting the rectification order…

CARMEL CONVENT ,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD, TRIVANDRAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes, and it’s stay petition is dismissed

ITA 689/COCH/2022[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin07 Mar 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Dr. Seethalakshmi

For Appellant: Shri Anil D. Nair, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(d)Section 12ASection 143(3)

…is for the reason of it having been, albeit unwittingly, allowed a higher claim. It is, however, the correct legal position that is relevant, and not the view that the parties may take of their rights in the matter: CIT v. C. Parakh & Co. (India) Ltd. [1956] 29 ITR 661 (SC) (also see: Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 363 (SC)). Once the issue of computation of deduction u/s. 11(1)(a) in wake of denial of that u/s. 11(1)(d), unaddressed by the ld. CIT(A), is open before him, all aspects thereof, in issue or otherwise integral thereto, would require being looked into. Why, these issues were not ra…

KK LEISURE & TOURISM INTERNATIONAL (P) LTD,KANNUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2 , KOZHIKODE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed, and it’s stay applications dismissed as infructuous

ITA 510/COCH/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Feb 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri Paven Ved, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 153ASection 153CSection 69C

…me set of arguments and facts. There is accordingly no deficiency in procedure. It is, after all, the correct legal position that is relevant, and not the view that the parties may take of their rights in the matter (CIT v. C. Parakh & Co. (India) Ltd. [1956] 29 ITR 661 (SC); Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 363 (SC)). The Tribunal, as explained in CIT v. Walchand & Co. (P.) Ltd. [1967] 65 ITR 381 (SC), is to deal with and determine all questions which arise out of the subject-matter of an appeal in the light of evidence, and consistently with the justice of the case. We are, in this context, con…

KK LEISURE & TOURISM INTERNATIONAL (P) LTD,KANNUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, KOZHIKODE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed, and it’s stay applications dismissed as infructuous

ITA 509/COCH/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Feb 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri Paven Ved, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 153ASection 153CSection 69C

…me set of arguments and facts. There is accordingly no deficiency in procedure. It is, after all, the correct legal position that is relevant, and not the view that the parties may take of their rights in the matter (CIT v. C. Parakh & Co. (India) Ltd. [1956] 29 ITR 661 (SC); Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 363 (SC)). The Tribunal, as explained in CIT v. Walchand & Co. (P.) Ltd. [1967] 65 ITR 381 (SC), is to deal with and determine all questions which arise out of the subject-matter of an appeal in the light of evidence, and consistently with the justice of the case. We are, in this context, con…

KK LEISURE & TOURISM INTERNATIONAL (P) LTD,KANNUR vs. THE DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, KOZHIKODE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed, and it’s stay applications dismissed as infructuous

ITA 508/COCH/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Feb 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri Paven Ved, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 153ASection 153CSection 69C

…me set of arguments and facts. There is accordingly no deficiency in procedure. It is, after all, the correct legal position that is relevant, and not the view that the parties may take of their rights in the matter (CIT v. C. Parakh & Co. (India) Ltd. [1956] 29 ITR 661 (SC); Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 363 (SC)). The Tribunal, as explained in CIT v. Walchand & Co. (P.) Ltd. [1967] 65 ITR 381 (SC), is to deal with and determine all questions which arise out of the subject-matter of an appeal in the light of evidence, and consistently with the justice of the case. We are, in this context, con…

SHRI.PRAKASH R. NAIR,KOLLAM vs. DCIT, KOLLAM

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

ITA 141/COCH/2021[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Jan 2024AY 2000-2001

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasprakash R. Nair Dy.Cit, Central Circle Prop. Dhanya Foods Kollam Kochuppilammoodu Vs. Kollam 691001 [Pan:Abfpn4424P] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 143(1)Section 148(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80Section 801A(9)Section 80HSection 80I

…t with the case of either party before us. That, however, would be to no moment inasmuch as it is the correct legal position that is relevant, and not the view that the parties may take of their rights in the matter: CIT v. C. Parakh & Co. (India) Ltd. [1956] 29 ITR 661 (SC))(Also see, Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 363 (SC)). 8. In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on January 17, 2024 under Rule 34 of The Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 (Manomohan Das) Accountant Member Cochin, Dated: January 17, 2024 n.p. 22 Prakash R.…

ACIT 1(1), MUMBAI vs. BLUE STAR LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal filed

ITA 5550/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Blue Star Ltd. The Addl. Cit, Range 1(1), Kasturi Building, Mohan T Advani Aaykar Bhavan, Mumbai Vs. Chowk, Jamshedji Tata Road, Mumbai-400 020 Pan/Gir No. Aaacb 4487 D (Assessee) (Revenue) : The Addl. Cit, Range 1(1), Blue Star Ltd. Aaykar Bhavan, Mumbai Kasturi Building, Mohan T Advani Vs. Chowk, Jamshedji Tata Road, Mumbai-400 020 Pan/Gir No. Aaacb 4487 D (Revenue) : (Assessee)

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Sheth

Section 115Section 145ASection 250Section 40Section 43B

…nd further relied on the following decisions: 1. CIT vs. Sterling Foods [1999] 237 ITR 579 (SC) 2. National Fertilizers Limited 142 Taxman 5 (AAR) 3. CIT vs. Jiyajeerao Cotton Mills Limited 79 Taxman 51 (Calcutta HC) 4. CIT vs. C Parekh & Co. (India) Limited 29 ITR 661 (SC) 5. CIT vs. Maharashtra Sugar Mills Limited 82 ITR 452 (SC) 8 ITA No. 4792 & 5550/Mum/2011 (A.Y.2006-07) Blue Star Ltd. 14. The learned Departmental Representative ('ld.DR' for short), on the other hand, controverted the said fact and stated that the advertisement expenses was for overall business of the company and that the assessee has no…

BLUE STAR LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal filed

ITA 4792/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Blue Star Ltd. The Addl. Cit, Range 1(1), Kasturi Building, Mohan T Advani Aaykar Bhavan, Mumbai Vs. Chowk, Jamshedji Tata Road, Mumbai-400 020 Pan/Gir No. Aaacb 4487 D (Assessee) (Revenue) : The Addl. Cit, Range 1(1), Blue Star Ltd. Aaykar Bhavan, Mumbai Kasturi Building, Mohan T Advani Vs. Chowk, Jamshedji Tata Road, Mumbai-400 020 Pan/Gir No. Aaacb 4487 D (Revenue) : (Assessee)

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Sheth

Section 115Section 145ASection 250Section 40Section 43B

…nd further relied on the following decisions: 1. CIT vs. Sterling Foods [1999] 237 ITR 579 (SC) 2. National Fertilizers Limited 142 Taxman 5 (AAR) 3. CIT vs. Jiyajeerao Cotton Mills Limited 79 Taxman 51 (Calcutta HC) 4. CIT vs. C Parekh & Co. (India) Limited 29 ITR 661 (SC) 5. CIT vs. Maharashtra Sugar Mills Limited 82 ITR 452 (SC) 8 ITA No. 4792 & 5550/Mum/2011 (A.Y.2006-07) Blue Star Ltd. 14. The learned Departmental Representative ('ld.DR' for short), on the other hand, controverted the said fact and stated that the advertisement expenses was for overall business of the company and that the assessee has no…

THE ACIT CORPORATE, COCHIN vs. M/S.KERA FIBERTEX INTERNATIONAL P. LTD, COCHIN

In the result, the appeals by the assessee is allowed, and that by the Revenue, dismissed

ITA 361/COCH/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Oct 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora (Accountant Member), Shri Manomohan Das (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P. Sathisan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sajit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(2)Section 153Section 153B

…first appellate authority, is to no consequence. There is no estoppel against law. Equally, it is the correct legal position that is relevant, and not the view that the parties may take of their rights in the matter (CIT v. C. Parakh & Co. (India) Ltd. [1956] 29 ITR 661 (SC); Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 363 (SC)).Further, there being no assessment in law, the assessee’s returned/admitted income is to be regarded as it’s income for the year, and its liability to tax under the Act is to be with reference thereto (CIT v. Shelly Products[2003] 261 ITR 367 (SC)). Both the appeals are disposed of…

M/S.KERA FIBERTEX INTERNATIONAL P. LTD,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

In the result, the appeals by the assessee is allowed, and that by the Revenue, dismissed

ITA 311/COCH/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Oct 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora (Accountant Member), Shri Manomohan Das (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P. Sathisan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sajit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(2)Section 153Section 153B

…first appellate authority, is to no consequence. There is no estoppel against law. Equally, it is the correct legal position that is relevant, and not the view that the parties may take of their rights in the matter (CIT v. C. Parakh & Co. (India) Ltd. [1956] 29 ITR 661 (SC); Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 363 (SC)).Further, there being no assessment in law, the assessee’s returned/admitted income is to be regarded as it’s income for the year, and its liability to tax under the Act is to be with reference thereto (CIT v. Shelly Products[2003] 261 ITR 367 (SC)). Both the appeals are disposed of…

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), THRISSUR vs. SRI.K.P. JOHNY, THRISSUR

In the result, both the assessee’s and the Revenue’s appeals are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 254/COCH/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dask.P. Johny Asst. Cit, Manappuram House Circle – 2(1) Hospital Road, Chalakkudy Aayakar Bhavan Vs. Thrissur 680307 Sakthan Thampuran Nagar [Pan:Acgpj4958G] Thrissur 680001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Asst. Cit, K.P. Johny Circle – 2(1) Manappuram House Aayakar Bhavan Hospital Road, Chalakkudy Vs. Sakthan Thampuran Nagar Thrissur 680307 Thrissur 680001 [Pan: Acgpj4958G] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri T.M. Sreedharan, Sr. Advocate (with Smt. Divya Ravindran, Adv. with him)For Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR

Section 131(1)Section 133ASection 147Section 148(1)Section 69

…civil dispute (Gadgil (S.S.) v. Lal &Co. [1964] 53 ITR 231 (SC)). It is, it is to be appreciated, the correct legal position that is relevant, and not the view that the parties may take of their rights in the matter (CIT v. C. Parakh & Co. (India) Ltd. [1956] 29 ITR 661 (SC);Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 363 (SC)). In Kapurchand Shrimal vs. CIT [1981] 131 ITR 451 (SC), the Hon’ble Apex Court explained that an appellate authority has the jurisdiction as well as the duty to correct all errors in the Page 24 ITANos. 206 & 254/Coch/2019 (AY: 2014-15) K.P. Johny vs. Asst. CIT proceedings under app…

(CIT v. C. Parakh & Co. (India) Ltd.

What is (CIT v. C. Parakh & Co. (India) Ltd. authority for?

Also referred to as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing (CIT v. C. Parakh & Co. (India) Ltd.

SARVODAYA SAMAJ KALYAN SANSTHAN,JAMUI vs. CPC , BANGALURU

OAKTON GLOBAL TECHNOLOGY SERVICES CENTRE (I) PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD

OAKTON GLOBAL TECHNOLOGY SERVICES CENTRE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD

SHRI VEERSHAIV CO. OP. BANK LTD.,KOLHAPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 2, KOLHAPUR , KOLHAPUR

AMALGAM FOODS LIMITED,KOCHI vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1, ALAPPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA

KATHIKODE CHARITABLE TRUST,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, THRISSUR

KATHIKODE CHARITABLE TRUST,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER., THRISSUR

THE KERALA MINERALS AND METALS LTD.,KOLLAM vs. THE DICT, KOLLAM

UNNIKRISHNAN. K,KUNNAMPALLY vs. THE ITO WARD 2, TIRUR

THE NEHRU MEMORIAL EDUCATION SOCIETY,KANHANGAD vs. ITO EXEMPTIONS, KANNUR

CARMEL CONVENT ,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD, TRIVANDRAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

KK LEISURE & TOURISM INTERNATIONAL (P) LTD,KANNUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2 , KOZHIKODE

KK LEISURE & TOURISM INTERNATIONAL (P) LTD,KANNUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, KOZHIKODE

KK LEISURE & TOURISM INTERNATIONAL (P) LTD,KANNUR vs. THE DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, KOZHIKODE

SHRI.PRAKASH R. NAIR,KOLLAM vs. DCIT, KOLLAM

ACIT 1(1), MUMBAI vs. BLUE STAR LTD, MUMBAI

BLUE STAR LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI

THE ACIT CORPORATE, COCHIN vs. M/S.KERA FIBERTEX INTERNATIONAL P. LTD, COCHIN

M/S.KERA FIBERTEX INTERNATIONAL P. LTD,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), THRISSUR vs. SRI.K.P. JOHNY, THRISSUR