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

29 ITR 661Supreme Court of India1956#1549 most cited

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.

73

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. C. Parakh & Co. (India) Ltd. · section 36 · section 143(3) · deduction claim · estoppel against statute · prior appropriation · correct legal position · assessee not estopped · income tax proceedings

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 234BSection 234CSection 250Section 271AASection 271BASection 36

Issues it is cited on

section 100section 148(1)profit split methodbright line testresale price methodsection 36(l)(va)amp expendituremultiple year datasection 92esection 92(1)cost plus methodfar analysis

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

Sri.K.P. Johny, Thrissur vs. The DCIT, Circle-2(1), Thrissur

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

ITA 206/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…

Ojin Bakers & Restaurant, Kozhikode vs. The ITO Ward 1(1), Kozhikode

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 184/COCH/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am &Shrimanomohan Das, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.R. Krishnan, CAFor Respondent: Smt.J.M.Jamuna Devi, Sr.AR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 69C

…ility. The findings by the lower authorities are not binding on the Tribunal and, further, it is the correct legal positionthat is relevant, and not the view that the parties may take of their rights in the matter (refer: CIT v. C. Parakh& Co. (I) Ltd. [1956] 29 ITR 661 (SC);Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 363 (SC)). The second optionis to restrict the scope of the instant proceedings to the maintainability or otherwise of the Revenue’s action in assessing Rs.4,89,122 as the assessee’s suppressed business income, without any credit for indirect expenditure. Even as we do not, for the reason/s st…

Good Homes Pvt Ltd, Kochi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Corporate Circle 1(1), Kochi

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 884/COCH/2022[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Aug 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am &Shriabyt.Varkey, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.A.Gopalakrishnan, CAFor Respondent: Smt.J.M.Jamuna Devi, Sr.AR
Section 133ASection 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Sanjay Arora, AM &ShriAbyT.Varkey, JM ITA No.870/Coch/2022: Asst.Year: 2007-2008 Ajit Associates Private Ltd. The Deputy Commissioner of 3rd Floor, Puthuran Plaza Income-tax, Corp.Cir.1(1) vs. KPCC Junction Kochi. Ernakulam – 682 011. [PAN: AAGCA9157P] (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA No.884/Coch/2022: Asst.Year: 2007-2008 Good Homes Private Limited The Deputy Commissioner of 3rd Floor, Puthuran Plaza Income-tax, Corp.Cir.1(1) vs. KPCC Junction Kochi. Ernakulam – 682 011. [PAN: AABCG0444L] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Sri.A.Gopalakr…

Ajit Associates Private Limited, Ernakulam vs. JCIT, Corporate Range - 1, Kochi

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 870/COCH/2022[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Aug 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am &Shriabyt.Varkey, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.A.Gopalakrishnan, CAFor Respondent: Smt.J.M.Jamuna Devi, Sr.AR
Section 133ASection 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Sanjay Arora, AM &ShriAbyT.Varkey, JM ITA No.870/Coch/2022: Asst.Year: 2007-2008 Ajit Associates Private Ltd. The Deputy Commissioner of 3rd Floor, Puthuran Plaza Income-tax, Corp.Cir.1(1) vs. KPCC Junction Kochi. Ernakulam – 682 011. [PAN: AAGCA9157P] (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA No.884/Coch/2022: Asst.Year: 2007-2008 Good Homes Private Limited The Deputy Commissioner of 3rd Floor, Puthuran Plaza Income-tax, Corp.Cir.1(1) vs. KPCC Junction Kochi. Ernakulam – 682 011. [PAN: AABCG0444L] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Sri.A.Gopalakr…

M/S Kerala Feeds Limited, Thrissur vs. DCIT Cir (1)(1) & Tps, Thrissur

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 942/COCH/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Aby T.Varkey, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. Varghese C.V., CA/ARFor Respondent: Smt.J.M.Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 115Section 115JSection 143Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 154Section 155Section 2(45)Section 245D

…w, and not what may be considered appropriate under the circumstances. It is trite law that 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)). If a payment not due, or not following the due process of law, has been paid by the assessee, the Revenue is obliged, in terms of s. 237, to refund it, or else it would be confiscatory. There is merit in the argument that the surcharge and cess cannot be charged twice on the same ta…

M/S. Bilcare Limited, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(2), Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 334/PUN/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.273/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Vs. M/S. Bilcare Limited, Pune. 601, Icc Trade Tower, Pune- 411016. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.334/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Bilcare Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 6Th Floor, B Wing, Icc 2(2), Pune. Trade Tower, Senapati Bapat Road, Pune- 411006. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Kishor PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Naveen Gupta
Section 92C

…lso equally settled that the presence and absence of entries in the books of account is not decisive or conclusive on the issue. In this connection, useful reference can be made to landmark judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Parakh & Co. India Ltd. 29 ITR 661 (SC) and Kedarnath Jute Manufacturing Co. Ltd. vs. CIT 82 ITR 363 (SC). Thus, the reasoning of the Assessing Officer that in the absence of entries in the books or balance sheet reflecting the sale of shares, loss cannot be allowed as a deduction does not hold good, in view law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to supra. C.O. No.14/P…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(2), Pune vs. M/S. Bilcare Limited, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 273/PUN/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.273/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Vs. M/S. Bilcare Limited, Pune. 601, Icc Trade Tower, Pune- 411016. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.334/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Bilcare Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 6Th Floor, B Wing, Icc 2(2), Pune. Trade Tower, Senapati Bapat Road, Pune- 411006. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Kishor PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Naveen Gupta
Section 92C

…lso equally settled that the presence and absence of entries in the books of account is not decisive or conclusive on the issue. In this connection, useful reference can be made to landmark judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Parakh & Co. India Ltd. 29 ITR 661 (SC) and Kedarnath Jute Manufacturing Co. Ltd. vs. CIT 82 ITR 363 (SC). Thus, the reasoning of the Assessing Officer that in the absence of entries in the books or balance sheet reflecting the sale of shares, loss cannot be allowed as a deduction does not hold good, in view law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to supra. C.O. No.14/P…

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

…position that claim of any deduction depends on the provisions of law and not on the view which the Assessee or ld. AO might take: “(i) Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. C. Parakh & Co. (India) Ltd. [on 2 March, 1956; Equivalent citations: AIR 1958 SC 775, 1956 29 ITR 661 SC] – Supreme Court of India (ii) Pope The King Match Factory vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Madras [1962 (3) TMI 81 - Madras High Court (iii) Commissioner of Income-Tax, West Bengal II vs. Royal Boot House [1969 (6) TMI 37, [1970] 25 STC 243 (Cal), [1970] 75 ITR 507] - Calcutta High Court Page 66 of 114 I.T.A. No.: 43/GTY/2022 I.T.A. No.: 2/GT…

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

…position that claim of any deduction depends on the provisions of law and not on the view which the Assessee or ld. AO might take: “(i) Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. C. Parakh & Co. (India) Ltd. [on 2 March, 1956; Equivalent citations: AIR 1958 SC 775, 1956 29 ITR 661 SC] – Supreme Court of India (ii) Pope The King Match Factory vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Madras [1962 (3) TMI 81 - Madras High Court (iii) Commissioner of Income-Tax, West Bengal II vs. Royal Boot House [1969 (6) TMI 37, [1970] 25 STC 243 (Cal), [1970] 75 ITR 507] - Calcutta High Court Page 66 of 114 I.T.A. No.: 43/GTY/2022 I.T.A. No.: 2/GT…

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

…position that claim of any deduction depends on the provisions of law and not on the view which the Assessee or ld. AO might take: “(i) Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. C. Parakh & Co. (India) Ltd. [on 2 March, 1956; Equivalent citations: AIR 1958 SC 775, 1956 29 ITR 661 SC] – Supreme Court of India (ii) Pope The King Match Factory vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Madras [1962 (3) TMI 81 - Madras High Court (iii) Commissioner of Income-Tax, West Bengal II vs. Royal Boot House [1969 (6) TMI 37, [1970] 25 STC 243 (Cal), [1970] 75 ITR 507] - Calcutta High Court Page 66 of 114 I.T.A. No.: 43/GTY/2022 I.T.A. No.: 2/GT…

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

…position that claim of any deduction depends on the provisions of law and not on the view which the Assessee or ld. AO might take: “(i) Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. C. Parakh & Co. (India) Ltd. [on 2 March, 1956; Equivalent citations: AIR 1958 SC 775, 1956 29 ITR 661 SC] – Supreme Court of India (ii) Pope The King Match Factory vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Madras [1962 (3) TMI 81 - Madras High Court (iii) Commissioner of Income-Tax, West Bengal II vs. Royal Boot House [1969 (6) TMI 37, [1970] 25 STC 243 (Cal), [1970] 75 ITR 507] - Calcutta High Court Page 66 of 114 I.T.A. No.: 43/GTY/2022 I.T.A. No.: 2/GT…

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

…position that claim of any deduction depends on the provisions of law and not on the view which the Assessee or ld. AO might take: “(i) Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. C. Parakh & Co. (India) Ltd. [on 2 March, 1956; Equivalent citations: AIR 1958 SC 775, 1956 29 ITR 661 SC] – Supreme Court of India (ii) Pope The King Match Factory vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Madras [1962 (3) TMI 81 - Madras High Court (iii) Commissioner of Income-Tax, West Bengal II vs. Royal Boot House [1969 (6) TMI 37, [1970] 25 STC 243 (Cal), [1970] 75 ITR 507] - Calcutta High Court Page 66 of 114 I.T.A. No.: 43/GTY/2022 I.T.A. No.: 2/GT…

Shree Vimaljin Religious Charitable Trust, Vapi vs. Asstt. Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 239/SRT/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 239/Srt/2021 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2016-17) (Physical Court Hearing) Shree Vimaljin Religious Charitable Trust, Vs. The Acit, Cpc, 102, Shantinath Apartment, Nehru Street, Bangaluru. Vapi-396191. (Assessee) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aalts6046F

Section 10Section 10(23)Section 11Section 12ASection 139Section 143(1)Section 2(15)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM & DR. A. L. SAINI, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 239/SRT/2021 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2016-17) (Physical Court Hearing) Shree Vimaljin Religious Charitable Trust, Vs. The ACIT, CPC, 102, Shantinath Apartment, Nehru Street, Bangaluru. Vapi-396191. (Assessee) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AALTS6046F Assessee by Shri Rasesh Shah, CA Shri H. P. Meena, CIT(DR) Respondent by Date of Hearing 29/07/2022 Date of Pronouncement 21/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R PER DR. A. L. SAINI, AM: Captioned appeal filed by the assessee,…

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Jabalpur vs. Smt. Sheela Rani Jain, Jabalpur

In the result, the Revenue‟s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 195/JAB/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur10 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon‟Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Sh. Shiv Kumar, Sr. DRFor Respondent: None
Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 263Section 54B

…the Revenue‟s Grounds before us. There is, however, no estopple against law. It is, accordingly, 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 is the final fact-finding body under the Act, and is to, accordingly, deal with and determine questions which arise out of the subject-matter of the appeal in the light of the evidence, and consistently with the justice of the case (CIT v. Walchand & Co. (P.) Ltd. [196…

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)

…allowed in accordance with the provisions of law and cited the 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…

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)

…allowed in accordance with the provisions of law and cited the 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…

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

…e 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 L Mehta vs CIT: 269 ITR 1 (Bom); x) CIT vs Berger Paints: 254 ITR 503 (Cal); xi) R. B. Jessa Ram Fateh Chand…

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

…e 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 L Mehta vs CIT: 269 ITR 1 (Bom); x) CIT vs Berger Paints: 254 ITR 503 (Cal); xi) R. B. Jessa Ram Fateh Chand…

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

…e 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 L Mehta vs CIT: 269 ITR 1 (Bom); x) CIT vs Berger Paints: 254 ITR 503 (Cal); xi) R. B. Jessa Ram Fateh Chand…

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

…e 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 L Mehta vs CIT: 269 ITR 1 (Bom); x) CIT vs Berger Paints: 254 ITR 503 (Cal); xi) R. B. Jessa Ram Fateh Chand…