(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.

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘I-2’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER [Through Video Conferencing] ITA No.499/Del./2015 Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/s. Prometric Testing (P) Vs. DCIT, Ltd., Circle-2, 2nd Floor, DLF Infinity Gurgaon Tower-A, Sec.-25, Phase-II, DLF City, Gurgaon PAN :AACCP5202A (Appellant) (Respondent) AND ITA No.397/Del./2015 Assessment Year: 2008-09 DCIT, Vs. M/s. Prometric Testing (P) Circle-3, Ltd., Gurgaon 2nd Floor, DLF Infinity Tower- A, Sec.-25, Phase-II, DLF City, Gurgaon PAN :AAACP5202A (Appellant) (Respondent)…

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘I-2’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER [Through Video Conferencing] ITA No.499/Del./2015 Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/s. Prometric Testing (P) Vs. DCIT, Ltd., Circle-2, 2nd Floor, DLF Infinity Gurgaon Tower-A, Sec.-25, Phase-II, DLF City, Gurgaon PAN :AACCP5202A (Appellant) (Respondent) AND ITA No.397/Del./2015 Assessment Year: 2008-09 DCIT, Vs. M/s. Prometric Testing (P) Circle-3, Ltd., Gurgaon 2nd Floor, DLF Infinity Tower- A, Sec.-25, Phase-II, DLF City, Gurgaon PAN :AAACP5202A (Appellant) (Respondent)…

Shree Veershaiv Co.Op.Bank Ltd, Kolhapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Kolhapur

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 606/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Jan 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm Sl. No.

For Appellant: Shri M. K. KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri S. P. Walimbe
Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 40

…nt, 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 again…

Shree Veershaiv Co.Op.Bank Ltd, Kolhapur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolhapur

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 605/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Jan 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm Sl. No.

For Appellant: Shri M. K. KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri S. P. Walimbe
Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 40

…nt, 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 again…

Shree Veershaiv Co.Op.Bank Ltd, Kolhapur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolhapur

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 604/PUN/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Jan 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm Sl. No.

For Appellant: Shri M. K. KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri S. P. Walimbe
Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 40

…nt, 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 again…

Shree Veershaiv Co.Op .Bank Ltd, Kolhapur vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 2(2), Kolhapur

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 2611/PUN/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Jan 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm Sl. No.

For Appellant: Shri M. K. KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri S. P. Walimbe
Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 40

…nt, 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 again…

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)

…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…

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)

…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 Nitin Sharma, Jabalpur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -2, Jabalpur

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 25/JAB/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur28 Sept 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Sanjay Arora

Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A(1)Section 153CSection 153C(1)Section 153DSection 263Section 7(1)

…ich cannot in law be. To that extent, there is a mistake, on which though nothing turns on. 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)). A ‘mistake’, in any case, cannot give rise to any right to the other side. Any surviving doubt in the matter would stand quenched with reference to s. 292B. 4.2 Continuing further, as we see it, the assessment in the instant case is a regular assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act, made…

ACIT 4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. The New Piece Goods Bazar Co. Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 6496/MUM/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2020AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik (DR)For Respondent: Sh. B.V. Jhaveri (Adv.)
Section 143(3)Section 22Section 24

…ed in accordance with law. There is, it may be clarified, no estopple against law. Further, it is not the view that the parties may take of their rights in the matter, but the correct legal position, that is relevant (CIT v. C. Parak & Co. (India) Ltd. [1956] 29 ITR 661 (SC); Kedernath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 363 (SC)). We have in fact observed that the expenditure on watchman salary has no bearing on the rental income, or its earning, so that it cannot even otherwise be regarded as contemplated u/s. 23, or u/s. 24(a), qua which a gross (lumpsum) allowance is now provided at a fixed rate (sum). In…

Mannulal Jagannath Das Trust Hospital, Jabalpur vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (E), Bhopal

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 13/JAB/2019[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur07 Sept 2020AY 2018-19

Bench: S/Shri Nrs Ganesan & Sanjay Arora

Section 10Section 10(1)Section 11Section 12ASection 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(vi)

…an be no deemed satisfaction and, besides, there is no estoppel against law. Though, in law, it is not the view that the parties may take of their rights in the matter, but the correct legal position that is relevant (CIT v. C. Parak & Co. (India) Ltd. [1956] 29 ITR 661 (SC); Kedernath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 363 (SC)), there is, we find, no clear finding in the absence of examination of facts by the competent authority in the instant case. We are not, we may at the cost of repetition state, expressing any opinion except to, on being called upon to, state the position of law which endorses our dec…

Madhya Pradesh Poorve Keshtra Vidyut Vitran Co.Ltd., Jabalpur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 2(1), Jabalpur

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 71/JAB/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur20 Jan 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Sanjay Aroraassessment Year: 2008-09 Madhya Pradesh Poorv Kshetra Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Vidyut Vitran Co. Ltd., Income Tax, Jabalpur Circle 2(1), [Pan: Aadcm 6175E] Jabalpur (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Sukesh Kumar, Ca Respondent By Shri I.B. Khandel, Senior Dr Date Of Hearing 11/12/2019 Date Of Pronouncement 20/01/2020

Section 115WSection 17(2)

…s on a perquisite, the same gets excluded under FBT. Again, without doubt, it is the correct legal position that is relevant, and not the view that the parties may take of their rights in the matter [see, inter alia, 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 tax payable on the perquisite to its’ employees, is, however, in view of s. 192 r/w s.4, by the assessee-employer, i.e., by and on behalf of the employees, and which it has not, and neither have the employees admittedly paid tax thereon. It is therefore not open for it to conte…

Auto Finance Enterprises, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 12(3), Mumbai

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 259/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.259/Mum/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Auto Finance Enterprises Acit-Circle 12(3) 1St Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, बनाम/ 41, Nariman Bhavan, 221, Nariman Point, M. K. Road Vs. Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai-400 020 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaafa-2325-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta & Shri GovindFor Respondent: Shri Satish Chandra Rajore - Ld. DR
Section 139(1)Section 139(3)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 45(2)Section 74(1)Section 80

…of the Supreme Court with respect to the approach that the Income-tax Authorities are required to adopt while assessing the income of an assessee. The relevant observations being apposite are extracted hereinbelow:— CIT v. C. Parakh & Co. (India) Ltd. [1956] 29 ITR 661 (SC). ". . .We do not see any force in this contention. Whether the respondent is entitled to a particular deduction or not will depend on the provision of law relating thereto, and not on the view which it might take of its rights, and consequently, if the whole of the commission is under the law liable to be deducted against the Indian profits,…

The Peerless Gen.Fin and Investment Company Limited vs. Commnr. of Income Tax

The appeal is allowed

C.A. No.-001265-001265 - 2007Supreme Court09 Jul 2019

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

…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. 11) Shri Arijit Prasad, learned senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the Revenue, however, strongly relied upon the observations in Ram Janki Devi and another v. M/s. Juggilal Kamlapat, (1971) 1 SCC 477. In particular, he relied upon p…

Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(2), Jammu vs. Sh. Neeraj Aggarwal, Jammu

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

ITA 349/ASR/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar06 Aug 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 349/(Asr)/2017 Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Sh. Alok Kumar, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Sh. S. Krishnan (Adv.)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 145(3)Section 80

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. N. K. CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 349/(Asr)/2017 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Income Tax Officer Vs. Neeraj Aggarwal, Ward-2(2), Jammu Khasra No. 69/3, Village-Singhola, 656, Gali No. 11, Sardar Bazar, Delhi-6 [Present at 545, Patoli Magotrian, Jammu] [PAN: ACZPA 1726C] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. Alok Kumar, CIT-DR Respondent by: Sh. S. Krishnan (Adv.) Date of Hearing: 21.05.2018 Date of Pronouncement: 09.08.2018 ORDER Per Sanjay Arora, AM: This is an Appeal by the R…

Langar Committee Hanuman Mandir, Malerkotla vs. Income Tax Officer, (Examption), Jalandhar

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is disposed on the aforesaid terms

ITA 516/ASR/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar15 Mar 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N.K.Choudhryi.T.A No. 516/(Asr)/2017 Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Sh. Subhash Jain & Kartik Jain (C As)For Respondent: Sh. S.S. Negi (DR)
Section 10Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(iia)

…Corporation v. Dy. CIT [2008] 297 ITR 1 (SC). In this regard, it may relevant to state 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))(also refer Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 363 (SC)). That apart, it may be appreciated that not so holding, i.e., that the assessee is not entitled to any exemption u/s. 11 on account of non-registration u/s. 12AA, on which aspect there is no ambivalence in law (refer section 12A(1)), would render our own order as internal…

The Income Tax Officer, Ward -4, Puducherry vs. Kalapet Primary Agricultural Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Pondicherry

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

ITA 2190/CHNY/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Feb 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

For Appellant: Mrs. S. Vijayaprabha, IRS, JCITFor Respondent: Shri. T. Vasudevan, Advocate
Section 5Section 56Section 80Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(4)

…y well be true and, in any case, remains to be determined. It needs to be appreciated 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)). Finally, even where the assessee succeeds, it being only on the basis of its’ ‘principal business’, which, could vary in it’s composition from year to year, i.e., in response to the market (supply and demand) forces, the assessee- bank’s claim would necessarily require being review…

M/S. Freescale Semiconductor India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result ITA No. 2427/Del/2014 preferred by the appeal for Assessment Year 2008-09 is allowed to the extent of direction of exclusion to the ld TPO of (1) Kals Information Systems

ITA 2427/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Dec 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishifreescale Semiconductor India Pvt Ltd, Dcit, Vs. 13, Abul Fazar Road, Circle-9(2), Room No. 405, Bengali Market, New Delhi Cr Building, Ip Estate Pan:Aaacz1978P New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri SD Kapila, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Amrender Kumar, CIT. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 92C

…nal in case of Quark System and then stated that as same is the mistake of the assessee in accepting this comparable in its original accept/ reject matrix and therefore, he relied on several decisions of Hon'ble Courts, prominent among them are 81 ITR 202 and 29 ITR 661. The ld DR relied upon the decision of coordinate bench in ITA No. 4001/Del/2013 for Assessment Year 2006-07 dated 11.05.2017 , where para No. 31 the issue of resiling of a comparable originally selected by the assessee was discussed. Therefore, it was stated that this comparable cannot be excluded. For the exclusion of the above comparable the ld…

M/S. Chennai Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

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

ITA 1858/CHNY/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Dec 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1858/Mds/2011 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05 Chennai Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Asst. Commissioner Of Income Refinery House, Manali, Vs. Tax, Chennai – 600 068 Company Circle-I(3), [Pan: Aaacm 4392C] Chennai – 600 034 (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: AdvocateFor Respondent: 07.09.2017
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 28Section 36(1)(iii)

…he material on record and decide in accordance with law, i.e., after determining the facts. 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)). The tribunal as an appellate authority, is under bounden duty to correct the errors, if any, attending the proceedings for assessment, issuing appropriate directions. (refer, inter alia, Kapurchand Shrimal v. CIT [1991] 131 ITR 451 (SC)). As explained in CIT v. Walchand and Co. (P.…

G.Narasiman, Erode vs. ITO, Coimbatore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is disposed of on the foregoing terms

ITA 1000/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Oct 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Tripathi, Jt. CITFor Respondent: 26.07.2017
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 139(5)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…ue entitled to support the impugned order in any manner. Rather, and even otherwise, it is the correct legal position that is relevant, and not the view that the parties may take of their rights in the matter (refer: 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 still, r. 11 & 27 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules are not exhaustive of the powers of the Tribunal (Hukumchand Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1967] 63 ITR 232 (SC)). In fact, continuing further, even if the said 11 G.Narasiman v. ITO ground/s are taken as admitted, i.e., for the sak…