Commissioner of Income-tax v. D.K.B. and Co.

243 ITR 618High Court2000#17414 most cited
5

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2018.

Judgments citing Commissioner of Income-tax v. D.K.B. and Co.

SHRI JAGDISH PRASAD GOEL,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 43, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2121/KOL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Jun 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am] I.T.A No. 2121/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2008-09 Shri Jagdish Prasad Goel -Vs- Dcit, Circle-43, Kolkata [Pan: Affpg 1693 B] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Pinaki Mukherjee, Addl. CIT
Section 133ASection 250

…en if the assessee has filed a return disclosing the profit as short term capital gain, the same cannot be upheld for the reason that there is no estopple against law. 4 5 Shri Jagdish Prasad Goel A.Yr.2008-09 a) In the case of CIT vs. DKB & Co. Reported in 243 ITR 618, the Hon'ble Kerala High Court held that "It is the settled position in law that there cannot be estoppels against a statute. There is no provision in the statute which permits a compromise assessment. The above position was indicated by the Apex Court in UOI vs. Banwari Lal Agarwal (1999) 238 ITR 461. It cannot be laid down as a principle of uni…

ACIT, BANGALORE vs. SHRI. DILIP RANJREKAR, BANGALORE

ITA 858/BANG/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Nov 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boazthe Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle-1(2)(1), Bengaluru. . Appellant Vs. Shri Dilip Ranjrekar, No.6B, Nitesh Mayfair, 31, Kasturba Road Cross, Bengaluru. . Respondent Pan No. – Aanpr4015M.

For Appellant: Shri H.N Khincha, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Padmameenakshi, JCIT
Section 10(12)Section 143(3)Section 54

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENCH ‘B’, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JASON P BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER The Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-1(2)(1), Bengaluru. . Appellant Vs. Shri Dilip Ranjrekar, No.6B, Nitesh Mayfair, 31, Kasturba Road Cross, Bengaluru. . Respondent PAN No. – AANPR4015M. CO No.28/Bang/2017 (Asst. Year – 2012-13) Shri Dilip Ranjrekar, No.6B, Nitesh Mayfair, 31, Kasturba Road Cross, Bengaluru. . Appellant Vs. The Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-1(2)(1), Bangalore. . Respondent Revenue by : Smt. Padmameenakshi, JCIT Assessee by : S…

ARADHYA STEEL WIRES PVT LTD.,,DAVANGERE vs. DCIT, DAVANGERE

ITA 1200/BANG/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boazthe Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle-1(2)(1), Bengaluru. . Appellant Vs. Shri Dilip Ranjrekar, No.6B, Nitesh Mayfair, 31, Kasturba Road Cross, Bengaluru. . Respondent Pan No. – Aanpr4015M.

For Appellant: Shri H.N Khincha, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Padmameenakshi, JCIT
Section 10(12)Section 143(3)Section 54

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENCH ‘B’, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JASON P BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER The Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-1(2)(1), Bengaluru. . Appellant Vs. Shri Dilip Ranjrekar, No.6B, Nitesh Mayfair, 31, Kasturba Road Cross, Bengaluru. . Respondent PAN No. – AANPR4015M. CO No.28/Bang/2017 (Asst. Year – 2012-13) Shri Dilip Ranjrekar, No.6B, Nitesh Mayfair, 31, Kasturba Road Cross, Bengaluru. . Appellant Vs. The Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-1(2)(1), Bangalore. . Respondent Revenue by : Smt. Padmameenakshi, JCIT Assessee by : S…

M/S. ALPNA PACKAGING PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal is dismissed

ITA 1415/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jan 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Raoalpna Packaging Pvt. Ltd, Ito, Alpna Cinema Building, Ward-1(3), Vs. Model Town, New Delhi Delhi Pan:Aacca9729K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. K. Sampath, AdvFor Respondent: Dr. Anjula Jain, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…is rooted through these transaction or alleged accommodation entries. Thus, the ld AR of the assessee has submitted that the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT Vs.DKB & Co 243 ITR 618 which is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The surrender of this amount is not made in statement of the assessee, therefore, the self surrender is not applicable in the case of the assessee. When the assessee has explained the source of this amount by supporting evidence then though the explanation was not relevan…

HARIPAL SINGH,,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result we allow ground no

ITA 6076/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Oct 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri J. S. Reddy

For Appellant: Shri. V.K. Garg, Adv. & Sh. Anil Chopra, FCAFor Respondent: Shri. Robin Rawal, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 56Section 57

…f law laid down, can be held against the assessee. 13.3. The legal position in such cases is that there is no estoppel in law. In coming to such conclusion, we draw strength from the following case laws. 14. (i) In the case of CIT vs. DKB & Co. Reported in 243 ITR 618, the Hon’ble Kerala High Court held that “It is the settled position in law that there cannot be estoppels against a statute. There is no provision in the statute which permits a compromise assessment. The above position was indicated by the Apex Court in UOI vs. Banwari Lal Agarwal (1999) 238 ITR 461. It cannot be laid down as a principle of uni…

Commissioner of Income-tax v. D.K.B. and Co. (243 ITR 618) — Cited in 5 Judgments | BharatTax