How many judgments cite CIT v. Mitesh Impex?

125 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Mitesh Impex (398 ITR 514), spanning 2015 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Mitesh Impex come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 153C, Section 153A, Section 147, Section 132, Section 132(4).

CIT v. Mitesh Impex

398 ITR 514High Court2017#835 most cited

What is CIT v. Mitesh Impex authority for?

The principle of taxing 'real income' means an assessee is not bound by a voluntary disallowance made under section 14A in the return of income if it was declared under a wrong belief, particularly when the Tribunal has adjudicated the matter in the assessee's favor. An assessee can resile from such a position to ensure only actual taxable income is assessed.

125

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,418 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Mitesh Impex · Pr. CIT v. UTI Bank Ltd. · 398 ITR 514 · Section 14A disallowance · voluntary disallowance in return · resiling from voluntary declaration · taxation of real income · assessee not bound by wrong belief · Gujarat High Court 2017 · expenses relating to exempt income

Also reported as

270 CTR 6646 Taxmann.com 30225 Taxmann 168

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 153C Section 153A Section 147 Section 132 Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 131(1A)

Issues it is cited on

undisclosed foreign income and assets section 149(1)(c)section 4(2)section 201(3)section 158ba section 150 unexplained jewellery section 70 beyond four years section 18 section 149(1)(b)statement under section 132(4)

Judgments citing CIT v. Mitesh Impex

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bangalore vs. M/S.Karnataka State Financial Corporation Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1604/BANG/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Raoasst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 4(1)(1), Bengaluru. … Appellant Vs. Karnataka State Financial Corporation Ltd. ‘Ksfc Bhavan’, No.1/1, Thimmaiah Road, Near Cantonment Railway Station, Bengaluru. … Respondent Pan:Aaack 9480 H Appellant By : Shri A.C.Raju, Ca. Respondent By : Shri B.R.Ramesh, Jcit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 18/01/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 13/04/2018 O R D E R Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-12, Bengaluru, [Cit(A)], Dated 28/06/2016 For The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. Briefly Facts Of The Case Are As Under: The Respondent-Assessee Is An Undertaking Of Government Of Karnataka Set Up For The Purpose Of Providing Finance To Industries In The State Of Karnataka. The Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2009-10 Was Filed On 30/09/2009. Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By Order Dated 28/11/2011 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Act' For Short] At Loss Of Rs.3,58,95,3461/. While Doing So, The Ao Disallowed A Sum Of Rs.34,17,548/- Invoking The Provisions Of Section 14A Of The Act, Legal & Professional Charges In Page 2 Of 8 Connection With Issue Of Bonds Of Rs.41,79,935/-, Also Not Allowed The Claim For Deduction Of Rs.548.64 Lakhs Being The Liability Arising On Account Rejection By Government Of Karnataka On The Ground That The Claim Was Not Made In The Original Return Of Income.

For Appellant: Shri A.C.Raju, CAFor Respondent: Shri B.R.Ramesh, JCIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, BENGALURU BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER and SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 4(1)(1), Bengaluru. … Appellant Vs. Karnataka State Financial Corporation Ltd. ‘KSFC Bhavan’, No.1/1, Thimmaiah Road, Near Cantonment Railway Station, Bengaluru. … Respondent PAN:AAACK 9480 H Appellant by : Shri A.C.Raju, CA. Respondent by : Shri B.R.Ramesh, JCIT(DR) Date of hearing : 18/01/2018 Date of pronouncement : 13/04/2018 O R D E R Per INTURI RAMA RAO, AM : This is an appeal filed by the revenue directed against the o…

Sajjan India Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 7(2), Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee and revenue for AY 2011-12

ITA 5550/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N.Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.5550/Mum/2015 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) बिाम/ Sajjan India Limited Addl. Cit, Range 7(2) C/O Shankarlal Jain & Aayakar Bhawan Associates , 12, Engineer M K Road V. Building, 265, Princess Queens Road Street, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400020 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aaacs6498M (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri. Shankarlal JainFor Respondent: Shri. V. Jenardhanan, DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

…disallowance u/s 14A can fall below the voluntary disallowance made by the assessee suo motu in return of income filed with the Revenue. The assessee has relied on decision of Hon‟ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Principal CIT v. UTI Bank Limited (2017) 398 ITR 514(Guj) and decision of ITAT, Mumbai in the case of Rupee Finance and Management Private Limited v. DCIT (2017) 57 ITR(Trib.) 205(Mumbai) . We find merit in the contention of the assessee that once tribunal has adjudicated matter in assessee‟s favour then merely because disallowance was made in return of income voluntarily under a wrong belief , the…

Axis Bank Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Addl.CIT, Range-I, Ahmedabad

ITA 2196/AHD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Oct 2017AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Arvind Sonde with Shri Gautam Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D. P. Gupta, CIT D.R. with Shri K. Madhusudan, Sr. D.R

Section 14Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)

…n’ble special bench decision (supra). Its only case is that the assessee is not entitled to raise its additional ground at this belated stage. We find no merit in the instant technical plea. Hon’ble jurisdictional high court’s decision in CIT vs. Mitesh Impex 270 CTR 66 (Gujarat) recognizes this tribunal’s jurisdiction to entertain such an additional ground for the first time as under. "38. It thus becomes clear that the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (supra) is confined to the powers of the assessing officer and accepting a claim without revised r…

The Kangra Co-Operative Bank Ltd., New Delhi vs. JCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed in ITA No

ITA 840/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2015AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. S.L. Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. P. Dum Kanunjna, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘H’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2009-10 JCIT, Range-38, 2nd Floor, The Kangra Co-operative Bank Vs. Ltd., Jain Khandelwal & Co., 510, C.R. Building, I.P. Estate, New Delhi House, 27, Barakhamba New Delhi. Road, New Delhi. (PAN: AAATT0361M) (Appellant) (Respondent) And Assessment Year: 2008-09 ACIT, Range-38, 2nd Floor, The Kangra Co-operative Bank Vs. Ltd., Jain Khandelwal & Co., 510, C.R. Building, I.P. Estate, New Delhi House, 27, Barakhamba New Delhi. Road, New Delhi.…

The Kangra Co-Operative Bank Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed in ITA No

ITA 1432/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2015AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Sh. S.L. Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. P. Dum Kanunjna, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 43B