CIT v. Shelly Products

261 ITR 367Supreme Court of India2003#623 most cited

What is CIT v. Shelly Products authority for?

An assessee is not estopped from making a legitimate claim, even if it was erroneously or inadvertently not made in the original return of income, as the purpose of assessment is to correctly determine the tax liability in accordance with law through a justice-oriented approach.

158

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,464 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Shelly Products · 261 ITR 367 · legitimate claim · erroneous claim · inadvertent claim · estoppel · return of income · correct tax liability · assessment procedure · justice-oriented approach

Also reported as

129 Taxmann 271

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 147Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 148
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 2(45)section 158bb(1)retraction of statementsection 158bbsection 131(1a)section 153c(1)section 292bsection 34regular assessmentsection 153a(1)block periodsection 153b

Judgments citing CIT v. Shelly Products

Madhu Kumar Patel, Hyderabad vs. ADIT, (Int. Taxn)-2, Hyderabad

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

ITA 395/HYD/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year:2015-16 Shri Madhu Kumar Patel Vs. A.D.I.T (Intl.Taxation)-2 Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Bvdpp3797G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, Ca Revenue By: Shri Rajendra Kumar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 10/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 26/12/2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19.7.2022 Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The I.T. Act For The A.Y 2015-16. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & A Resident Of The U.K. He Filed His Return Of Income On 31.08.2015 Declaring Total Income At Rs.2,91,07,000/- As Income From Long Term Capital Gain.

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 147Section 148Section 2(47)(v)

…e is entitled to claim deduction of the same before the appellate authority since the same cannot be taxed in the year. For the above proposition, the learned Counsel for the assessee relied on the following decisions: 1) CIT vs. Shelly Products and another (261 ITR 367) (S.C) 2) CIT vs. Bharat General Reinsurance Co. Ltd (81 ITR 303) (Del.). 3) Prithvi Share Brokers (349 ITR 336) (Mum) 4) Parikh & Co. (122 ITR 610) Guj. High Court) 5) S.R. Kosthi vs. CIT (276 ITR 165 (Guj.H.C) 6) Sanghi Industries vs. ACIT (ITA Nos.979 to 1001/Hyd/2017) 13. He accordingly submitted that the Assessing Officer should be directed…

M/S. Jk Investors (Bombay ) Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cent. Cir-8(1), Mumbai

In the result, the present appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2115/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2022AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Madhur AggarwalFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153C

…ITA. No. 2115/Mum/2021 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Circle 17(1), New Delhi vs. Vireet Investment Private Limited: [2017] 188 TTJ 1 (Delhi - Trib.) (SB). He also relied upon the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Shelly Products [2003] 261 ITR 367 in support of Ground No. 1 above. 8. Per contra, Ld. Departmental Representative submitted that the aforesaid submissions were not made by the Appellant before the Assessing Officer or the CIT(A). He further submitted that the factual averments made by the Ld. Authorised Representative for the Appellant before the Tribunal need to be verified.…

Shantinath Detergents Pvt. Ltd, Kolkata vs. DCIT, CC-3(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 467/KOL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Nov 2022AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Amal Shudhir Kamat, CIT
Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 154Section 250

…ess. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court has referred to in this respect to the I.T.A. No. 467/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shantinath Detergents Pvt. Ltd. 5 decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “CIT vs Shelly Products and another” reported in 261 ITR 367. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court has also referred to CBDT Circular No. 14(XL-35) of 1955 dated 11.04.1955, wherein, the CBDT has directed that the officers of the department must not take advantage of ignorance of an assessee as to his rights and that it is one of their duties to assist a tax payer in every reasonable way, particularly, in the matt…

Vinodchandra T Parikh, Ahmedabad vs. ITO, Ward-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 457/AHD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 457/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2013-2014 Vinodchandra T. Parikh, I.T.O, 31, Shail, Vs. Ward-2(1)(2), Opp. Madhusudan House, Ahmedabad. Navrangpura, Ahmedabad.

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Shah, A.R with Shri Aman K. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Deelip Kumar Sr., DR
Section 27lSection 54Section 54ESection 54F

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद "ायपीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘’ A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER And Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 457/AHD/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2013-2014 Vinodchandra T. Parikh, I.T.O, 31, Shail, Vs. Ward-2(1)(2), Opp. Madhusudan House, Ahmedabad. Navrangpura, Ahmedabad. PAN: ACKPP7076K (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Ketan Shah, A.R with Shri Aman K. Shah, A.R Revenue by : Shri Deelip Kumar Sr., DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 12/10/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 21/10/2022 आदेश/O R D…

Gmr Energy Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Director Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 526/BANG/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Sept 2022AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Jagdish K. Jogi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

…ITA Nos.513 & 526/Bang/2022 M/s. GMR Energy Limited, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.513 & 526/Bang/2022 Assessment Year: 2019-2020 & 2020-2021 M/s. GMR Energy Limited No.25/1, Skip House, Museum Road ADIT, CPC Vs. Bangalore 560 025. Bangalore PAN NO : AAACT8420A APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Jagdish K. Jogi, A.R. Respondent by : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R. Date of Hearing : 03.08.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 02.09.2022 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT…

Gmr Energy Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 513/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Sept 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Jagdish K. Jogi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

…ITA Nos.513 & 526/Bang/2022 M/s. GMR Energy Limited, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.513 & 526/Bang/2022 Assessment Year: 2019-2020 & 2020-2021 M/s. GMR Energy Limited No.25/1, Skip House, Museum Road ADIT, CPC Vs. Bangalore 560 025. Bangalore PAN NO : AAACT8420A APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Jagdish K. Jogi, A.R. Respondent by : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R. Date of Hearing : 03.08.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 02.09.2022 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 11, Pune vs. Hsbc Software Development (India) Private Limited, Pune

In the result, CO of assessee is allowed and the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2348/PUN/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

For Respondent: Shri Percy Jal Pardiwalla
Section 10A(7)Section 10BSection 10B(7)Section 143(3)Section 80I

…Income Tax (Appeals) erred on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law in allowing alternate claim of the assessee for deduction u/s. 10A of the Act ignoring decision of the Hon. Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Shelly Products reported in 129 Taxmann 271 wherein it has been held that the assessing authority may grant relief to an assessee if an assessee by mistake or inadvertence or on account of ignorance, included in his income any amount, which is exempted from payment of income-tax, or is not income within the contemplation of law, which is clearly not established in this case. 6. On the…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 11, Pune vs. Hsbc Software Development (India) Pvt.Ltd, Pune

In the result, CO of assessee is allowed and the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1464/PUN/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

For Respondent: Shri Percy Jal Pardiwalla
Section 10A(7)Section 10BSection 10B(7)Section 143(3)Section 80I

…Income Tax (Appeals) erred on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law in allowing alternate claim of the assessee for deduction u/s. 10A of the Act ignoring decision of the Hon. Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Shelly Products reported in 129 Taxmann 271 wherein it has been held that the assessing authority may grant relief to an assessee if an assessee by mistake or inadvertence or on account of ignorance, included in his income any amount, which is exempted from payment of income-tax, or is not income within the contemplation of law, which is clearly not established in this case. 6. On the…

Shri Chetanbhai Ramjibhai Aviaiya, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -3(2)(2), Surat

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

ITA 364/SRT/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat15 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.364/Srt/2017(Ay 2014-15) (Hearing In Virtual Court) Shri Chetanbhai Ramjibhai Income Tax Officer, Ward- Avaiya, 24, Tapovan Society 3(2)(2), Room No.415, 4Th Vs Ved Road, Katargam, Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Surat Surat Pan : Afspa 0072 J अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 253Section 254(1)

…आयकरअपील"यअ"धकरण,सुरत "यायपीठ,सुरत IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND Dr ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अ.सं./ITA No.364/SRT/2017(AY 2014-15) (Hearing in virtual Court) Shri Chetanbhai Ramjibhai Income Tax Officer, Ward- Avaiya, 24, Tapovan Society 3(2)(2), Room No.415, 4th Vs Ved Road, Katargam, Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Surat Surat PAN : AFSPA 0072 J अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee by ShriManish J Shah, Advocate राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue by Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing 13.07.2022 उ"घोषणा क"…

Aura Securities Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 532/AHD/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalassessment Year : 2017-18 Aura Securities Private Limited, Income Tax Officer, 403, 404 Shilp Building, Vs Circle-1(1)(1), Cg Road, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad – 380009 Pan : Aabcm 0602 L अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Biren Shah & Shri Dhrunal Bhatt, Ars Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 16/06/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 15/07/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per P.M. Jagtap, Vice-: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-1, Ahmedabad (“Cit(A)” In Short) Dated 21.09.2020 & The Solitary Ground Raised Therein Reads As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri Biren Shah & Shri Dhrunal Bhatt, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…s-conception or not being properly instructed, is over assessed, the authorities under the Act are required to ensure that only legitimate tax dues are collected. This is the view which flows from innumerable judgments including CIT vs. Shelly Products (2003) 261 ITR 367 (SC), S. R. Koshti vs. CIT (2005) 276 ITR 165 (Guj), Ester Industries vs. CIT (2009) 185 TAXMAN 266 (Delhi) and CIT vs. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders (P.) Ltd. [2012] 349 ITR 336 (Bom). The essence of these decisions are that mere admission on the part of the assessee with respect to an addition/disallowance in its original return or in revised…

Shri Ritum Jain, Kolkata vs. DCIT, CC-3(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 466/KOL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Ritum Jain Dcit, Cc-3(2), Kolkata 4A, Metro Towers, 1, Ho Chi Vs. Minh Sarani, Kolkata – 700 071. Pan: Actpj 4441 K (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri A.K. Tulsyan, Ar Respondent By : Smt. Ranu Biswas, Acit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 09.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.03.2022 O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 30.09.2021 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-21, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’]. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Ld. Ao In Rejecting The Assessee’S Rectification Petition Filed U/S 154 Claiming The Subsidy Received By The Assessee As Industrial Promotion Assistance (Ipa) From The State Govt, Under West Bengal Industrial Promotion (Assistance To Industrial Units) Scheme, As Capital Receipt In Place Of Revenue Receipt. The Claim Of The Assessee Was Rejected By The Ld. Ao As Well As The Ld. Cit(A) On The Ground That The Same Cannot Be Claimed By The Assessee In The Rectification Petition U/S 154 Since The Same Was Not Claimed In The Return Of Income Filed By The Assessee In View Of The Decision Of Hon’Ble Apex Court In Case Of Goetze India Ltd. Vs Cit In 157 Taxman 1. The Ld. Cit(A) Did Not Consider The Fact That The Assessee’S Case Is Squarely Covered By Judicial Decisions On Similar Facts In The Case Of Sharda Cropchem Ltd. Vs Dcit In 71 Itr (Trib) 141 & Dcit & Kashmir Steel Rolling Mills In 130/Asr/2014. Therefore, The Action Of 2 Shri Ritum Jain A.Y. 2014-15 The Ld. Cit(A) In Rejecting The Claim Of The Assessee Is Unjustified & The Claim Needs To Be Allowed.

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tulsyan, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Ranu Biswas, ACIT, DR
Section 139(5)Section 153ASection 154Section 250

…satisfied, he may grant the assessee necessary relief and refund the tax paid in excess. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court has referred to in this respect to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “CIT vs Shelly Products and another” reported in 261 ITR 367. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court has also referred to CBDT Circular No. 14(XL-35) of 1955 dated 11.04.1955, wherein, the CBDT has directed that the officers of the department must not take advantage of ignorance of an assessee as to his rights and that it is one of their duties to assist a tax payer in every reasonable way, particularly, in the matt…

M/S Nds Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax International Taxation Circle-1(2), Bangalore

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 3350/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR)
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 234B

…w is well settled and the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Indglonal Investments and Finance Limited Vs. ITO, Writ Petition (Civil) 15639/2006 and 7127/2008 dated 03.06.2011 after considering the decision rendered in the case of CIT Vs. Shelly Products 261 ITR 361 (SC) came to the conclusion that if by mistake or inadvertently or on account of ignorance included in his return of income in income which is not income within contemplation of law, bring the same to the notice of tax authorities and the tax authorities can grant him relief and repay of tax in excess. The Hon’ble Court referred to article 265 of…

The DCIT, (Central)-1, Indore vs. Shri Dipak Kalani, Indore

In the result, revenue’s appeals in IT(SS)A 104

ITA 1045/IND/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…the assessee himself offered the said amount in his return of income and paid the legitimate amount of taxes due thereon. The Ld. Counsel also placed reliance on the following judgments to support his contentions:  CIT v. Shelly Products reported in [2003] 261 ITR 367 (SC)  CIT v. K.N. Oil Industries reported in [1983] 142 ITR 13 (Madhya Pradesh)  Deep Chand Jain v. ITO reported in [1984] 145 ITR 676 (Punjab & Haryana) Accordingly, the Ld. Counsel submitted that correct amount of additional income which should have been taxed was of Rs. 33,89,582/- instead of Rs.62,50,000/- originally offered in the return…

The DCIT, (Central)-1, Indore vs. Shri Pankaj Kalani, Indore

In the result, revenue’s appeals in IT(SS)A 104

ITA 1044/IND/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…the assessee himself offered the said amount in his return of income and paid the legitimate amount of taxes due thereon. The Ld. Counsel also placed reliance on the following judgments to support his contentions:  CIT v. Shelly Products reported in [2003] 261 ITR 367 (SC)  CIT v. K.N. Oil Industries reported in [1983] 142 ITR 13 (Madhya Pradesh)  Deep Chand Jain v. ITO reported in [1984] 145 ITR 676 (Punjab & Haryana) Accordingly, the Ld. Counsel submitted that correct amount of additional income which should have been taxed was of Rs. 33,89,582/- instead of Rs.62,50,000/- originally offered in the return…

M/S.Nds Limited, Bangalore vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 364/BANG/2017[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Dec 2021AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A No. 364/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2007-08 M/S. Synamedia Ltd. [Formerly Known As ‘Nds Limited’], The Assistant C/O. M/S. Synamedia India Pvt. Commissioner Of Ltd., Income Tax, Block 9A & 9B, Pritech Park, International Survey No. 51-64/4, Taxation, Sarjapur Outer Ring Road, Vs. Circle – 1(2), Bellandur Village, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 103. Pan: Aabcn2524L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sharath Rao, Advocate : Shri Dilip, Standing Revenue By Counsel For Dept. Date Of Hearing : 16-12-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-12-2021

For Appellant: Shri
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234B

…w is well settled and the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Indglonal Investments and Finance Limited Vs. ITO, Writ Petition (Civil) 15639/2006 and 7127/2008 dated 03.06.2011 after considering the decision rendered in the case of CIT Vs. Shelly Products 261 ITR 361 (SC) came to the conclusion that if by mistake or inadvertently or on account of ignorance included in his return of income in income which is not income within contemplation of law, bring the same to the notice of tax authorities and the tax authorities can grant him relief and repay of tax in excess. The Hon’ble Court referred to article 265 of…

ITO, Bhadrak Ward, Bhadrak vs. Himansu Mohapatra, Bhadrak

In the result, Appeals of the revenue in in ITANos

ITA 45/CTK/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack21 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am

For Appellant: Shri S.C Mohanty, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)

…ng at the surrounding circumstances. Failure to consider the Revised return filed & self-assessment tax paid by the assessee on bogus Long Term Capital Gains in the light of Supreme Court's decision in the case of CIT vs MIs Shelly Products And Another (2003) 261 ITR 367 (SC) Ground No.7: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in ignoring the fact that subsequent to survey operation on the group, the assessee had filed revised return of income and had offered bogus Long Term Capital Gains to tax by paying additional self-assessment tax. In spite of the same, the CIT(A) h…

ITO, Bhadrak Ward, Bhadrak vs. Himansu Mohapatra, Bhadrak

In the result, Appeals of the revenue in in ITANos

ITA 44/CTK/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack21 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am

For Appellant: Shri S.C Mohanty, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)

…ng at the surrounding circumstances. Failure to consider the Revised return filed & self-assessment tax paid by the assessee on bogus Long Term Capital Gains in the light of Supreme Court's decision in the case of CIT vs MIs Shelly Products And Another (2003) 261 ITR 367 (SC) Ground No.7: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in ignoring the fact that subsequent to survey operation on the group, the assessee had filed revised return of income and had offered bogus Long Term Capital Gains to tax by paying additional self-assessment tax. In spite of the same, the CIT(A) h…

ITO, Bhadrak Ward, Bhadrak vs. Deepansu Mohapatra, Bhadrak

In the result, Appeals of the revenue in in ITANos

ITA 43/CTK/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack21 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am

For Appellant: Shri S.C Mohanty, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)

…ng at the surrounding circumstances. Failure to consider the Revised return filed & self-assessment tax paid by the assessee on bogus Long Term Capital Gains in the light of Supreme Court's decision in the case of CIT vs MIs Shelly Products And Another (2003) 261 ITR 367 (SC) Ground No.7: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in ignoring the fact that subsequent to survey operation on the group, the assessee had filed revised return of income and had offered bogus Long Term Capital Gains to tax by paying additional self-assessment tax. In spite of the same, the CIT(A) h…

ITO, Bhadrak Ward, Bhadrak vs. Deepansu Mohapatra, Bhadrak

In the result, Appeals of the revenue in in ITANos

ITA 42/CTK/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack21 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am

For Appellant: Shri S.C Mohanty, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)

…ng at the surrounding circumstances. Failure to consider the Revised return filed & self-assessment tax paid by the assessee on bogus Long Term Capital Gains in the light of Supreme Court's decision in the case of CIT vs MIs Shelly Products And Another (2003) 261 ITR 367 (SC) Ground No.7: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in ignoring the fact that subsequent to survey operation on the group, the assessee had filed revised return of income and had offered bogus Long Term Capital Gains to tax by paying additional self-assessment tax. In spite of the same, the CIT(A) h…

ITO, Bhadrak Ward, Bhadrak vs. Anupama Mohapatra, Bhadrak

In the result, Appeals of the revenue in in ITANos

ITA 41/CTK/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack21 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am

For Appellant: Shri S.C Mohanty, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)

…ng at the surrounding circumstances. Failure to consider the Revised return filed & self-assessment tax paid by the assessee on bogus Long Term Capital Gains in the light of Supreme Court's decision in the case of CIT vs MIs Shelly Products And Another (2003) 261 ITR 367 (SC) Ground No.7: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in ignoring the fact that subsequent to survey operation on the group, the assessee had filed revised return of income and had offered bogus Long Term Capital Gains to tax by paying additional self-assessment tax. In spite of the same, the CIT(A) h…