CIT v. M. Pyngrope

200 ITR 106High Court1993#19757 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,631 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2022.

Judgments citing CIT v. M. Pyngrope

Rekha Shekhawat, Kota vs. Pr.CIT, Udaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7/JPR/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanajy Dhariwal, CIT

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271A

…t, it cannot work as an estoppel and the assessee, if still feels aggrieved in any manner, can pursue legal remedy. Hence, showing income under a wrong head in the return of income cannot be taken as an admission. 9.1.1 Kindly refer CIT vs. M. Pyngrope (1993) 200 ITR 106 (Gau.), wherein it was held that: "Appeal (AAC)-Maintainability of appeal-Scope-Denial of liability by assessee within the meaning of S.246(1)(c)-Has wide import and such denial may be by way of appeal-It is not necessary that assessee should have denied liability in return itself 9.1.2 CIT vs. Apar Limited (2002) 175 CTR 312 (Bombay), wherein it…

Ramesh Chand Bansal, Beawar vs. DCIT, Ajmer

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 398/JPR/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Jun 2018AY 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Seema Meena, JCIT - DR

Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 139Section 153ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…efined in Expl. (a) was found represented by cash and advances in the search year (specified previous year). Even though was surrendered in other years, the law is well settled that there is no estoppel against statute. kindly refer CIT vs. M. Pyngrope (1993) 200 ITR 106 (Guj.) approved of the right of the assessee to prefer an appeal though assessment was made on the basis of return filed by the assessee, holding that sec. 246(1) of the Act is very wide. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Nirmala L. Mehta’s case (2004) 269- ITR-1 observed“There cannot be any estoppels against the statute, Article 265 of the Consti…

Design Core, Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

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

ITA 617/JPR/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Feb 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: The Itat By Taking Following

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya (Adv)For Respondent: Smt. Poonam Rai (DCIT)

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 234BSection 244A(3)Section 40Section 40A(3)

…rieved of the addition made by the AO, he can agitate in the appeal. Kindly refer Sanjay Tandon (individual) v/s ACIT (2008) 119 TTJ 277 (Lucknow). Also refer Raghava Health Care Ltd. v/s CIT (2008) 14 DTR 341 (Visaka). The case of CIT v/s M. Pyngrope (1993) 200 ITR 106 (Guj.) approved of the right of the assessee to prefer an appeal though assessment was made on the basis of return filed by the assessee, holding that Sec. 246(1) of the Act is very wide. In Nirmala L. Mehta’s case (2004) 269 ITR 1 (Bom) observed “There cannot be any estoppels against the statute, Article 265 of the Constitution of India in unmis…

DDIT (It) 4(2), Mumbai vs. Abu Dhabi Ship Bldg Pjsc, Mumbai

In the result, Department’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 5418/MUM/2013[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jun 2016AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh TharFor Respondent: Dr. Dipak Ripote

Section 195(2)Section 246A(1)Section 9(1)

…liability to be assessed under the Act, it is eligible to file an appeal against the order passed under section 195(2). For such proposition, he relied upon the following decisions:– i) CIT v/s Kanpur Coal Syndicate, 53 ITR 225 (SC); ii) CIT v/s M. Pyngrope, 200 ITR 106 (Gau.); iii) M. Anandan v/s ITO, 53 ITD 428 (Mad. Trib.); and iv) ITO v/s Shri Bhogavati Sah. Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., 101 ITD 302 (Pune Trib.). 11. Distinguishing the decisions of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in CIT v/s Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd., 245 ITR 823 (Bom.), learned Authorised Representative submitted the decision i…