CIT v. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry

251 ITR 868High Court2001#20673 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2025 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 12Section 143(3)Section 251(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 32(1)(ii)Section 56(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 56(1)section 11(1)(d)section 32(1)(ii)section 251(2)section 11(1)section 251(1)section 251(1)(a)application of incomesection 251section 271(1)section 271section 271(1)(c)

Judgments citing CIT v. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry

MAHARIVA PUPIL EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,NOIDA vs. CIT(A)- 1, NOIDA

In the result, the assessee’s instant twin quantum appeals

ITA 7255/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: Shri Akshit Goel, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR
Section 10(23)(C)Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 143(3)Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 32(1)(ii)

…ainst the assessment findings disallowing/restricting the assessee’s exemption claim, already forming subject of adjudication; and, therefore, not sustainable as per CIT vs. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry (1962) 44 6 ITR 891 (SC), CIT vs. Sardari lal & Co. (2001) 251 ITR 868 (Del) and CIT vs. Union Tyres (1999) 240 ITR 556 (Del.), adjudicating the very issue in assessee’s favour and against the department. The Revenue forgoing case law(s) admittedly does not deal with the issue of adding an altogether new head of income and the same stands distinguished therefore. We accordingly accept the assessee’s above extracted…

MAHARIVA PUPIL EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,NOIDA vs. JCIT, RANGE-1, NOIDA

In the result, the assessee’s instant twin quantum appeals

ITA 7254/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: Shri Akshit Goel, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR
Section 10(23)(C)Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 143(3)Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 32(1)(ii)

…ainst the assessment findings disallowing/restricting the assessee’s exemption claim, already forming subject of adjudication; and, therefore, not sustainable as per CIT vs. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry (1962) 44 6 ITR 891 (SC), CIT vs. Sardari lal & Co. (2001) 251 ITR 868 (Del) and CIT vs. Union Tyres (1999) 240 ITR 556 (Del.), adjudicating the very issue in assessee’s favour and against the department. The Revenue forgoing case law(s) admittedly does not deal with the issue of adding an altogether new head of income and the same stands distinguished therefore. We accordingly accept the assessee’s above extracted…

MAHAVIRA PUPIL EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,NOIDA vs. ITO(EXEMPTION), NOIDA

In the result, the assessee's instant twin quantum appeals

ITA 4466/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: Shri Akshit Goel, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR
Section 10(23)(C)Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 143(3)Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 32(1)(ii)

…against the assessment findings disallowing/restricting the assessee's exemption claim, already forming subject of adjudication; and, therefore, not sustainable as per CIT vs. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry (1962) 44 ITR 891 (SC), CIT vs. Sardari lal & Co. (2001) 251 ITR 868 (Del) and CIT vs. Union Tyres (1999) 240 ITR 556 (Del.), adjudicating the very issue in assessee's favour and against the department. The Revenue forgoing case law(s) admittedly does not deal with the issue of adding an altogether new head of income and the same stands distinguished therefore. We accordingly accept the assessee's above extracted…

MAHAVIRA PUPIL EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,NOIDA vs. ITO(EXEMPTION), NOIDA

In the result, the assessee’s instant twin quantum appeals

ITA 4465/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: Shri Akshit Goel, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR
Section 10(23)(C)Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 143(3)Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 32(1)(ii)

…ainst the assessment findings disallowing/restricting the assessee’s exemption claim, already forming subject of adjudication; and, therefore, not sustainable as per CIT vs. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry (1962) 44 6 ITR 891 (SC), CIT vs. Sardari lal & Co. (2001) 251 ITR 868 (Del) and CIT vs. Union Tyres (1999) 240 ITR 556 (Del.), adjudicating the very issue in assessee’s favour and against the department. The Revenue forgoing case law(s) admittedly does not deal with the issue of adding an altogether new head of income and the same stands distinguished therefore. We accordingly accept the assessee’s above extracted…