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

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 3114/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…

DCIT, Circle-2(2), New Delhi vs. Anant Raj Ltd., New Delhi

The appeal is allowed partly as indicated above

ITA 5238/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Goel, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, CA; Ms
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 50

…D 77 (Delhi)(TM) 8. Further, the learned Assessing Officer also erred in law and on facts in ignoring the fact that the Revenue can only charge tax as per law as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of CIT vs Shelly Products (2003) 261 ITR 367 (SC) and NTPC Ltd vs CIT 229 ITR 383 (SC).” Admission of additional grounds 40. The Ld. AR on behalf of the assessee submitted that the additional grounds are legal issue which goes to the very root of the taxability of LTCG in wake of decree passed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court and should be admitted and these grounds do not involve any fresh…

DCIT, Circle-2(2), New Delhi vs. Anant Raj Ltd., New Delhi

The appeal is allowed partly as indicated above

ITA 5237/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Goel, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, CA; Ms
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 50

…D 77 (Delhi)(TM) 8. Further, the learned Assessing Officer also erred in law and on facts in ignoring the fact that the Revenue can only charge tax as per law as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of CIT vs Shelly Products (2003) 261 ITR 367 (SC) and NTPC Ltd vs CIT 229 ITR 383 (SC).” Admission of additional grounds 40. The Ld. AR on behalf of the assessee submitted that the additional grounds are legal issue which goes to the very root of the taxability of LTCG in wake of decree passed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court and should be admitted and these grounds do not involve any fresh…

Anant Raj Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-2(2), New Delhi

The appeal is allowed partly as indicated above

ITA 4736/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Goel, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, CA; Ms
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 50

…D 77 (Delhi)(TM) 8. Further, the learned Assessing Officer also erred in law and on facts in ignoring the fact that the Revenue can only charge tax as per law as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of CIT vs Shelly Products (2003) 261 ITR 367 (SC) and NTPC Ltd vs CIT 229 ITR 383 (SC).” Admission of additional grounds 40. The Ld. AR on behalf of the assessee submitted that the additional grounds are legal issue which goes to the very root of the taxability of LTCG in wake of decree passed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court and should be admitted and these grounds do not involve any fresh…

ITO 2 (1)(3), Mumbai vs. Centrum Capital Limited, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the revenue stands dismissed and the cross objection

ITA 497/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Oct 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Ito – 2(1)(3) Centrum Capital Limited Room Ni. 553, 5Th Floor, 2Nd Floor, Bombay Mutual Building, Aaykar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Vs. Dr. D. N. Road, Fort, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 001

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra JainFor Respondent: Shri Lalit Dehiya
Section 14Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, AM AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM ITO – 2(1)(3) Centrum Capital Limited Room Ni. 553, 5th Floor, 2nd Floor, Bombay Mutual Building, Aaykar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Vs. Dr. D. N. Road, Fort, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 001 PAN/GIR No. AAACC 5099 G (Revenue) : (Assessee) and CO No. 12/Mum/2020 (Arising out of ITA No. 497/Mum/2019) (Assessment Year: 2013-14) Centrum Capital Limited ITO – 2(1)(3) 2nd Floor, Bombay Mutual Building, Room Ni. 553, 5th Floor, Vs. Dr. D. N. Road, Fort, Aaykar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 020 PAN/G…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Buniyad Developers Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5290/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Sept 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. Rajiv Saxena, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 10Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 148Section 2(14)Section 2(14)(iii)

…ti vs. CIT, 276 ITR 165(Guj). He further submitted that the authorities are under the obligation under the Act to act in accordance with law. Lastly, he placed relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Shelly Products and Another, 261 ITR 367 and submitted that if the assessee had, by mistake and inadvertence or on account of ignorance included in his income any amount which is exempt from payment of Income-tax or is not income within the contemplation of law, the assessee may bring the same to the notice of the Revenue, which if satisfied, may grant the assessee necessary relief and…

Asst. CIT - 11(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Sangam India Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 6197/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Sept 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N.Prasad, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am

Section 143(3)Section 2(24)

…also find that in yet another decision, the Hon‟ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Milton Laminates Ltd., reported in 218 Taxman 108(Guj) after considering the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Shelly Products reported in 261 ITR 367 had held that assessed income could be below the returned income by observing as under:- “7. In view of the above, we do not find any reason to interfere with the Tribunal's ultimate conclusion in allowing the assessee's appeal. Though some of the observations may not appeal to us, nevertheless, for the reasons somewhat different from those recor…

M/S Moolchand Kumawat & Sons, Beawar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Beawar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1013/JPR/2019[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Jul 2020AY 1998-99

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Written submissionFor Respondent: Ms Chanchal Meena (Addl.CIT)
Section 154Section 158BSection 240

…he eye of law which has no legal sanctity". The assessee further relied on the following judgments, which have been duly discussed by Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in above referred case:- 1. Commissioner of Income tax Vs. Shelly Products and Another (2003) 261 ITR 367 (SC) 2. Nirmala L. Mehta Vs. Bala Subramaniam, CIT and others (2004) 269 ITR 1 (Bombay) 3. S. R. Koshti Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (2005) 276 ITR 165 (Gujarat) 4. Saraya Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer and others (1997) 226 ITR 475 (Allahabad) 5. Ajit Jain Vs. Union of India and others (2000) 242 ITR 302 (Delhi) 6. CIT & Dy. CIT (In…

Ardor in-Fin Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1121/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 May 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1121/Ahd/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Ardor-In-Fin P Ltd Ito, Ward-7(3) Ardor House, Vs Ahmedabad. Mondeal Business Park B/S.Gurudwara Thalej, S.G. Road Ahmedabad 380 059. Pan : Aagca 2925 B अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ankit Talsania Revenue By : Shri Lalit P.Jain, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri Ankit TalsaniaFor Respondent: Shri Lalit P.Jain, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)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…

ACIT, Circle- 2(2), New Delhi vs. Anant Raj Ltd., New Delhi

In the result assessee’s appeal is partly allowed and Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 5677/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 May 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Bindal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Goel, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)Section 4Section 50C

…& 5677/DEL/2017 13 been shown, then it can always be pointed out in the year of claim of loss or income. In support he strongly referred and relied upon the following judgments: (a) S.S. Gadgil Vs Lal and Co. 53 ITR 231(SC) (b) CIT v. Shelly Products [2003] 261 ITR 367 (SC) (c) Vijay Gupta [2016] 68 taxmann.com 131 (Delhi) (d) Abdul Qayume Vs CIT (1990) 184 ITR 404 (All) (e) Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd.Vs CIT 82 ITR 363 (SC) (f) CIT Vs Bharat General Reinsurance Co. Limited. 81 ITR 303 (Delhi) (g) R. Seshammal vs ITO 237 ITR 185 (Madras) (h) CIT Vs Bhawani Singhji [2018] 99 taxmann.com 338 (Delhi) (i) Shri Vipu…

Anant Raj Ltd, New Delhi vs. Addl.CIT, Range-2, Circle-2(2), New Delhi

In the result assessee’s appeal is partly allowed and Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 5169/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 May 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Bindal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Goel, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)Section 4Section 50C

…& 5677/DEL/2017 13 been shown, then it can always be pointed out in the year of claim of loss or income. In support he strongly referred and relied upon the following judgments: (a) S.S. Gadgil Vs Lal and Co. 53 ITR 231(SC) (b) CIT v. Shelly Products [2003] 261 ITR 367 (SC) (c) Vijay Gupta [2016] 68 taxmann.com 131 (Delhi) (d) Abdul Qayume Vs CIT (1990) 184 ITR 404 (All) (e) Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd.Vs CIT 82 ITR 363 (SC) (f) CIT Vs Bharat General Reinsurance Co. Limited. 81 ITR 303 (Delhi) (g) R. Seshammal vs ITO 237 ITR 185 (Madras) (h) CIT Vs Bhawani Singhji [2018] 99 taxmann.com 338 (Delhi) (i) Shri Vipu…

Mr. Samuel Thangaraj Ponniah, Salem vs. ITO Ward 1 (5), Salem

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1773/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Respondent: Shri S. Bharath, CIT
Section 148Section 263Section 50CSection 54Section 54F

…wer of this Tribunal will not impinge to admit additional or any other ground. Therefore, there is no impediment for this Tribunal to consider the claim u/s.54F of the Act. Moreover, the Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Shelly Products and Another, (2003) 261 ITR 367 had categorically found that it is open to the assessee to bring to the notice of the Assessing Officer any claim in the course of the assessment proceedings even though it was not claimed in the return of income. This judgment of the Apex Court was not considered by the latest judgment in Geozte (India) Ltd (supra). Therefore the judgment of…

Essar Ports Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(1)(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 1831/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh & Shri Ravish Soodm/S Essar Ports Ltd. Dcit, 5(1)(2) (Formerly Known As Essar Shipping Ports & Logistics Ltd.) Aayakar Bhavan, 11, K.K. Marg, Mahalaxmi, Vs. Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai – 400 034

For Appellant: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Anand Mohan, cit D.R
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 14ASection 92C

…he returned income. On a perusal of the facts as were involved in the aforesaid case before the Hon‟ble High Court, we find, that the A.O was of the view that by virtue of the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Shelly Products (2003) 261 ITR 367 (SC) and CBDT Circular No. 549, dated 31.10.1989, while giving effect to the order of the CIT(A) the assessed income of the assessee could not be brought below the returned income. On appeal, the CIT(A) upheld the aforesaid view of the A.O. However, the Tribunal by relying on the judgement of the Hon‟ble High Court Gujarat in the case of Gujarat…

The DCIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Suzlon Energy Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 972/AHD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Nov 2019AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Tushar P. Hemani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri N.R. Soni, CIT-D.R
Section 115JSection 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…

Thiagarajan Automobiles, Madurai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 3, Madurai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for 7

ITA 1693/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Sept 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri. D. Divahar, IRS, JCIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 80

…urn of income was not valid in law, the Assessing Officer is expected to compute the income in accordance with the provisions of the Act and he placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Shelly Products and Another (2003) 261 ITR 367 and CBDT circular No. 14(XL-35) dated 11.04.1955. On the other hand, the ld. Sr. Departmental Representative 5. placed reliance on the orders of lower authorities. 6. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. Admittedly, the revised return of income filed by the assessee is not valid in law. Assessee had filed revised…

M/S the Spunpipe & Construction Co. (Baroda) Pvt. Ltd., Baroda vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1) (1), Baroda

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2594/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Jul 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2594 & 2612/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri A. C. Shah, A.R
Section 14ASection 36(1)(va)

…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…

DCIT, Cir.1(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Ardor in-Fin Private Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed in the terms above

ITA 2739/AHD/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Jun 2019AY 2014-15
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…ITA No. 2739/Ahd/2017 DCIT Vs. Ardor In-fin Pvt Ltd Assessment year: 2014-15 Page 1 of 4 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD [Coram: Pramod Kumar, VP and Ms. Madhumita Roy, JM] Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax ............…………......Appellant Circle 1(1)(1), Ahmedabad Vs. Ardor In-fin Pvt Ltd ...........................Respondent Ardor House, Mondeal Business Park, B/s. Gurudwara, Thaltej, Ahmedabad – 380059 [PAN : AAGCA 2925 B] Appearances by: Mudit Nagpal, for the Appellant Ankit Talsania, for the Respondent Date of concluding the hearing : 14.03.2019…

Greenland Infracon Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 690/AHD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Jun 2019AY 2014-15
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 234ASection 271

…ITA No. 690/Ahd/2018 Greenland Infracon Pvt Ltd Vs. DCIT Assessment year: 2014-15 Page 1 of 5 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AHMEDABAD BENCH ‘B’, AHMEDABAD [Coram: Justice P P Bhatt, President, and Pramod Kumar, Vice President] Assessment year: 2014-15 Greenland Infracon Pvt Ltd .........………...……………..Appellant A-2, Sanjay Apartment, Panchvati Lane-2, Panchvati, Ambawadi, Ahmedabad [PAN : AADCG 5313 Q] Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax .......……………..…........Respondent Circle-2(1)1(1), Ahmedabad Appearances by Gunjan Shah, for the appellant Mudit Nagpal, for the respondent Date of concluding the…

Transtonnelstroy Afcons Joint Venture, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 20(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1452/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Amarjit Singh (Jm)

Section 234BSection 234CSection 234DSection 37(1)

…application etc. for wrong deduction of TDS in this regard. In our considered opinion such mechanical approach of the Revenue is not justified. In this regard we draw support from Hon'ble Apex Court decision in the case of CIT Vs. Shelly products and others (261 ITR 367) wherein it was held that assessee was entitled to refund excess tax paid out of abundant caution or owing to error or non-taxability. The 11 Transtonnelstory Afcons Joint Venture common law maxim of aprobate and reprobate mandates that such a contradictory approach and shifting stands are not permissible. This view was reiterated by Hon'ble Ape…

Ardor Structures Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 297/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Ms. Madhumita Royardor Structures Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Ardor House, Mondeal Circle – 1(1)(1), Business Park, Ahmedabad. B/S. Gurudwara, Thaltej, Ahmedabad-380059. [Pan No. Aahca 8674 N] (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Talsania, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sewak, Sr. D.R
Section 10(34)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)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…