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 366,470 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

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

In the result, Appeals of the revenue in in ITANos

ITA 40/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. Sitansu Sekhar Mohapatra, Bhadrak

In the result, Appeals of the revenue in in ITANos

ITA 38/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. Smt. Kuntala Mohapatra, Bhadrak

In the result, Appeals of the revenue in in ITANos

ITA 50/CTK/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack17 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. Parbati Mohapatra, Bhadrak

In the result, Appeals of the revenue in in ITANos

ITA 49/CTK/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack17 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. Kishore Kumar Mohapatra, Bhadrak

In the result, Appeals of the revenue in in ITANos

ITA 48/CTK/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack17 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. Mamata Mohapatra, Bhadrak

In the result, Appeals of the revenue in in ITANos

ITA 47/CTK/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack17 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. Amruta Preetam Mohapatra, Bhadrak

In the result, Appeals of the revenue in in ITANos

ITA 46/CTK/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack17 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…

Nds Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(2) International Taxation, Bangalore

In the result, all these appeals are partly allowed

ITA 505/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Nov 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(It)A Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Year 363/Bang/2017 M/S. Synamedia Limited The Assistant Commissioner Of 2006-07 (Formerly Known As ‘Nds Limited), Income Tax (International Taxation), C/O M/S. Synamedia India Private Circle -1(2), Limited, Bengaluru. Block 9A & 9B, Pritech Park, Survey No.51-64/4, Sarjapur Outer Ring Road, Bellandur Village, Bengaluru – 560 103. Pan : Aabcn 2524 L 504/Bang/2017 -Do- -Do- 2012-13 505/Bang/2017 -Do- -Do- 2013-14 255/Bang/2014 -Do- The Assistant Director Of Income 2010-11 Tax, (International Taxation), Circle – 1(1) [Now Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax (International Taxation), Circle – 1(2), Bengaluru. Appellant By : Shri Sharath Rao, Advocate Respondent By : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 01.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.11.2021

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(vi)

…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…

Nds Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(2) International Taxation, Bangalore

In the result, all these appeals are partly allowed

ITA 504/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Nov 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(It)A Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Year 363/Bang/2017 M/S. Synamedia Limited The Assistant Commissioner Of 2006-07 (Formerly Known As ‘Nds Limited), Income Tax (International Taxation), C/O M/S. Synamedia India Private Circle -1(2), Limited, Bengaluru. Block 9A & 9B, Pritech Park, Survey No.51-64/4, Sarjapur Outer Ring Road, Bellandur Village, Bengaluru – 560 103. Pan : Aabcn 2524 L 504/Bang/2017 -Do- -Do- 2012-13 505/Bang/2017 -Do- -Do- 2013-14 255/Bang/2014 -Do- The Assistant Director Of Income 2010-11 Tax, (International Taxation), Circle – 1(1) [Now Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax (International Taxation), Circle – 1(2), Bengaluru. Appellant By : Shri Sharath Rao, Advocate Respondent By : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 01.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.11.2021

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(vi)

…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…

Nds Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(2) International Taxation, Bangalore

In the result, all these appeals are partly allowed

ITA 363/BANG/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Nov 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(It)A Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Year 363/Bang/2017 M/S. Synamedia Limited The Assistant Commissioner Of 2006-07 (Formerly Known As ‘Nds Limited), Income Tax (International Taxation), C/O M/S. Synamedia India Private Circle -1(2), Limited, Bengaluru. Block 9A & 9B, Pritech Park, Survey No.51-64/4, Sarjapur Outer Ring Road, Bellandur Village, Bengaluru – 560 103. Pan : Aabcn 2524 L 504/Bang/2017 -Do- -Do- 2012-13 505/Bang/2017 -Do- -Do- 2013-14 255/Bang/2014 -Do- The Assistant Director Of Income 2010-11 Tax, (International Taxation), Circle – 1(1) [Now Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax (International Taxation), Circle – 1(2), Bengaluru. Appellant By : Shri Sharath Rao, Advocate Respondent By : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 01.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.11.2021

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(vi)

…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…

Mohan Sukumaran, Raigarh(Cg) vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1(1), Bilaspur(Cg)

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 141/BIL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur26 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Kumar, DR

…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 ITA Nos. 140 & 141/RPR/2017 (Mohan S…

Mohan Sukumaran, Raigarh(Cg) vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1(1), Bilaspur(Cg)

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 140/BIL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur26 Oct 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Kumar, DR

…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 ITA Nos. 140 & 141/RPR/2017 (Mohan S…

Tolani Shipping Co. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, Cir-5(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee for A

ITA 6730/MUM/2018[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Mar 2021AY 2004-05
Section 10(33)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…der the web of hyper technicality. Moreover, it is settled law that no tax can be collected except under the mandate of law as enshrined in Article 265 of the Constitution of India. Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Shelly Products and another 261 ITR 367 (SC) has reiterated this view. 25. Upon careful consideration, we note that the one issue arising here is as to whether the impugned amount represents profit earned on account of freight paid to the subsidiary company is to be considered as shipping business income for the purpose of computation of deduction u/s. 33AC or 11 Tolani Shipping Co. L…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(1), Hyderabad vs. Uppala Pradeep Kumar, Hyderabad

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed

ITA 434/HYD/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Mar 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Sri M.V. Anil KumarFor Respondent: Sri V.V.S.T. Sai, CIT(DR)
Section 139Section 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…antage of ignorance of the assessee about his rights and it is their duty to assist the tax payer in every reasonable way particularly in the matter of claiming and securing reliefs. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Shelly Products reported in 261 ITR 367 (S.C) has held as under: “We cannot lose sight of the fact that the failure or inability of the revenue to frame a fresh assessment should not place the assessee in a more disadvantageous position than in what he would have been if a fresh assessment was made. In a case where an assessee chooses to deposit by way of abundant caution advance tax o…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(1), Hyderabad vs. Uppala Ravi Kumar, Hyderabad

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed

ITA 433/HYD/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Mar 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Sri M.V. Anil KumarFor Respondent: Sri V.V.S.T. Sai, CIT(DR)
Section 139Section 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…antage of ignorance of the assessee about his rights and it is their duty to assist the tax payer in every reasonable way particularly in the matter of claiming and securing reliefs. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Shelly Products reported in 261 ITR 367 (S.C) has held as under: “We cannot lose sight of the fact that the failure or inability of the revenue to frame a fresh assessment should not place the assessee in a more disadvantageous position than in what he would have been if a fresh assessment was made. In a case where an assessee chooses to deposit by way of abundant caution advance tax o…

Pradeep Kumar Uppala, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(1), Hyderabad

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed

ITA 278/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Mar 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Sri M.V. Anil KumarFor Respondent: Sri V.V.S.T. Sai, CIT(DR)
Section 139Section 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…antage of ignorance of the assessee about his rights and it is their duty to assist the tax payer in every reasonable way particularly in the matter of claiming and securing reliefs. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Shelly Products reported in 261 ITR 367 (S.C) has held as under: “We cannot lose sight of the fact that the failure or inability of the revenue to frame a fresh assessment should not place the assessee in a more disadvantageous position than in what he would have been if a fresh assessment was made. In a case where an assessee chooses to deposit by way of abundant caution advance tax o…

Ravi Kumar Uppala, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(1), Hyderabad

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed

ITA 277/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Mar 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Sri M.V. Anil KumarFor Respondent: Sri V.V.S.T. Sai, CIT(DR)
Section 139Section 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…antage of ignorance of the assessee about his rights and it is their duty to assist the tax payer in every reasonable way particularly in the matter of claiming and securing reliefs. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Shelly Products reported in 261 ITR 367 (S.C) has held as under: “We cannot lose sight of the fact that the failure or inability of the revenue to frame a fresh assessment should not place the assessee in a more disadvantageous position than in what he would have been if a fresh assessment was made. In a case where an assessee chooses to deposit by way of abundant caution advance tax o…

M/S. Dabur India Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl.CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6525/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Feb 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anupam Kant Garg, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80GSection 80ISection 92CSection 92E

…income is wrongly offered by an assessee or on previously asserted legal stand, it would not operate as estoppel against the assessee to revise such stand and make a legitimate claim otherwise entitled in law (No estoppel in law):- i) CIT v. Shelly Products: 261 ITR 367 (SC); ii) CIT v. Bharat General Re-Insurance Co. Ltd.: 81 ITR 303 (Del.); iii) HCL Technologies vs ACIT : 377 ITR 483 (Del); iv) CTI vs C. Parakh & Co (India) Ltd: 29 ITR 661 (SC); v) CIT vs VMRP Firm: 56 ITR 67 (SC); vi) Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala: 91, ITR 18 (SC); vii) Pt. Sheo Nath Prasad Sharma v. CIT : 66 ITR 647…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Dabur India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6256/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Feb 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anupam Kant Garg, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80GSection 80ISection 92CSection 92E

…income is wrongly offered by an assessee or on previously asserted legal stand, it would not operate as estoppel against the assessee to revise such stand and make a legitimate claim otherwise entitled in law (No estoppel in law):- i) CIT v. Shelly Products: 261 ITR 367 (SC); ii) CIT v. Bharat General Re-Insurance Co. Ltd.: 81 ITR 303 (Del.); iii) HCL Technologies vs ACIT : 377 ITR 483 (Del); iv) CTI vs C. Parakh & Co (India) Ltd: 29 ITR 661 (SC); v) CIT vs VMRP Firm: 56 ITR 67 (SC); vi) Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala: 91, ITR 18 (SC); vii) Pt. Sheo Nath Prasad Sharma v. CIT : 66 ITR 647…

M/S. Dabur India Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl.CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3241/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Feb 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anupam Kant Garg, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80GSection 80ISection 92CSection 92E

…income is wrongly offered by an assessee or on previously asserted legal stand, it would not operate as estoppel against the assessee to revise such stand and make a legitimate claim otherwise entitled in law (No estoppel in law):- i) CIT v. Shelly Products: 261 ITR 367 (SC); ii) CIT v. Bharat General Re-Insurance Co. Ltd.: 81 ITR 303 (Del.); iii) HCL Technologies vs ACIT : 377 ITR 483 (Del); iv) CTI vs C. Parakh & Co (India) Ltd: 29 ITR 661 (SC); v) CIT vs VMRP Firm: 56 ITR 67 (SC); vi) Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala: 91, ITR 18 (SC); vii) Pt. Sheo Nath Prasad Sharma v. CIT : 66 ITR 647…