Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Nirmala Devi and Others

118 ITR 507Supreme Court of India1979#301 most cited

What is Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Nirmala Devi and Others authority for?

For condoning delay, the term 'sufficient cause' must be interpreted liberally and purposively to advance justice. Delay not tainted by mala fides, gross negligence, or recklessness, and based on honestly obtained legal advice, constitutes sufficient cause.

268

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2014 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Nirmala Devi · 118 ITR 507 · condonation of delay · sufficient cause · liberal interpretation · legal advice · mala fides · gross negligence · Section 253(5) · delay in filing appeal · Supreme Court.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 147Section 143(1)Section 253(5)Section 271(1)(c)Section 148Section 154

Issues it is cited on

section 253(5)section 80ibdelay in filing appealsection 139(4)enduring benefitcondonation of delaysection 253reasonable causesection 12aasection 24registration under section 12aerroneous and prejudicial

Judgments citing Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Nirmala Devi and Others

Amu Shares & Securities Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 4(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 408/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Pawan Singh

For Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar Sr DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 253Section 254(1)Section 73Section 73(1)

…e relied upon the honorable Supreme Court in case of N. Balakrishnan V/s M. Krishnamurthy, AIR 1998 SC-3222, the Collector Land Acquisition Vs Mst Katiji & others (167 ITR 471 SC), Concord of India Insurance Company Ltd Versus Smt. Nirmala Devi and others (118 ITR 507 SC) and the decision of Tribunal in Phonixs Mills Ltd Versus ACIT in ITANo. 6240/M/2007 dated 23 March 2010, Systamatic Capital Markets Services Private Limited V/s DCIT in ITA No. 1259/M/2012&, 2583/M/2014 dated 24 March 2017. On merit the ld AR of the assessee relied upon the decision of jurisdictional High Court in case of CIT Vs Darshan Se…

Smt. Vishalakshi Devi, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(4), Bengaluru

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2797/BANG/2017[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Mar 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia

For Appellant: Shri A. Shankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Padma Meenakshi, JCIT(DR)
Section 144Section 148Section 234A

…. 7167/Mum/2011 dated 04.09.2013 copy submitted. In the rejoinder the ld. counsel for the assessee placed reliance on another judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Nirmala Devi &Ors. as reported in 118 ITR 507. 6. I have considered the rival submissions and the judgments cited by both sides in respect of condonation of delay. I find that the Tribunal order rendered in the case of J.N. Chandrashekar Vs. ITO (supra) on which reliance has been placed by the DR of the revenue is not helping the revenue in the present case because in that case, the reasons…

Smt. Vishalakshi Devi, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(4), Bengaluru

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2796/BANG/2017[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Mar 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia

For Appellant: Shri A. Shankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Padma Meenakshi, JCIT(DR)
Section 144Section 148Section 234A

…. 7167/Mum/2011 dated 04.09.2013 copy submitted. In the rejoinder the ld. counsel for the assessee placed reliance on another judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Nirmala Devi &Ors. as reported in 118 ITR 507. 6. I have considered the rival submissions and the judgments cited by both sides in respect of condonation of delay. I find that the Tribunal order rendered in the case of J.N. Chandrashekar Vs. ITO (supra) on which reliance has been placed by the DR of the revenue is not helping the revenue in the present case because in that case, the reasons…

Smt. Vishalakshi Devi, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(4), Bengaluru

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2795/BANG/2017[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Mar 2018AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia

For Appellant: Shri A. Shankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Padma Meenakshi, JCIT(DR)
Section 144Section 148Section 234A

…. 7167/Mum/2011 dated 04.09.2013 copy submitted. In the rejoinder the ld. counsel for the assessee placed reliance on another judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Nirmala Devi &Ors. as reported in 118 ITR 507. 6. I have considered the rival submissions and the judgments cited by both sides in respect of condonation of delay. I find that the Tribunal order rendered in the case of J.N. Chandrashekar Vs. ITO (supra) on which reliance has been placed by the DR of the revenue is not helping the revenue in the present case because in that case, the reasons…

DCIT, Circle - 16(2), Hyderabad vs. M/S Maheshwari Mega Ventures Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1352/HYD/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Jan 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Shri J. Siri Kumar
Section 115JSection 133ASection 143(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH ‘A', HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2006-07 Dy. Commissioner of vs. Maheshwari Mega Ventures Income-tax, Circle – Ltd., Hyderabad. 16(2), Hyderabad. PAN – AADCM9780D Appellant Respondent Revenue by: Shri J. Siri Kumar Assessee by: Shri K.C. Devdas Date of hearing: 15/11/2017 Date of pronouncement: 24/01/2018 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM: This appeal is filed by the revenue against the order of CIT(A) - V, Hyderabad dated 28/02/2014 for the AY 2006-07. 2. Briefly t…

Sri Abdul Khayum, Bengaluru vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward - 7(2)(2), Bengaluru

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

ITA 1035/BANG/2017[2012 - 13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Oct 2017

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri V.Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Biju, JCIT (D.R)
Section 144

…the CIT (Appeals). He has relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Others 167 ITR 471 as well as decision in the case of Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Nirmala Devi and Others 118 ITR 507 and submitted that every delay must be explained dos not mean that pedantic approach should be made. The Doctrine must apply in a ratio, commonsense and pragmatic manner as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Further in the substantial justice and technological considerations are treated against each other because of justice deserves to be preferr…

Shree Swami Samarth Trading Co. P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT (A)-13, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are dismissed

ITA 3552/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

Section 144Section 271(1)(c)

…ase of an Balaicrishnan vs. M Krishnamoorthy (1998) 7 SCC, 123 and again in case of a state of Andhra Pradesh vs. Venkatraman Chudava vs. Muramura Merchant (1986) 159 ITR 59 (AP), Concord of Indian insurance company limited vs. Sint. Nirmaladevi & Sons (1979) 118 ITR 507 (SC). However, in cases where the appellant have not come up clean and the reasons given are not based on facts, the delay cannot be condoned merely because of sympathy. It was so decided in the case of Mewa Ram (Deceased by L. Rs) &Ors. v. State of Haryana, AIR 1987 SC 45; State of Nagaland v. Lipok AO & Ors., AIR 2005 SC 2191; and D.Gopinathan…

Shree Swami Samarth Trading Co. Lt, Mumbai vs. CIT (A)-13, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are dismissed

ITA 3551/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

Section 144Section 271(1)(c)

…ase of an Balaicrishnan vs. M Krishnamoorthy (1998) 7 SCC, 123 and again in case of a state of Andhra Pradesh vs. Venkatraman Chudava vs. Muramura Merchant (1986) 159 ITR 59 (AP), Concord of Indian insurance company limited vs. Sint. Nirmaladevi & Sons (1979) 118 ITR 507 (SC). However, in cases where the appellant have not come up clean and the reasons given are not based on facts, the delay cannot be condoned merely because of sympathy. It was so decided in the case of Mewa Ram (Deceased by L. Rs) &Ors. v. State of Haryana, AIR 1987 SC 45; State of Nagaland v. Lipok AO & Ors., AIR 2005 SC 2191; and D.Gopinathan…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S Gravity Systems Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed while the cross objection of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5626/DEL/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Mar 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri. P. K. Bansal & Shri K.N. Charry Assessment Year:2004-05

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amrit Lal, D.R
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…2016. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble M.P. High Court in the case of Mahaveerprasad Jain vs. CIT, 172 ITR 331 (MP) as well as that of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Concord Of India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Nirmala Devi & Ors., 118 ITR 507. He has also drawn our attention towards the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Improvement Trust vs. Ujagar Singh, 6 SCC 786, in which it was held that unless the malafides are writ large, the delay should be condoned. 4. The ld. D.R., on the other hand, has contended that this is not a reasonable cause and the delay should not b…

M/S. Deventhira Spinners (P) Ltd., Erode vs. ACIT, Salem

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 2442/CHNY/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Dec 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2442 Of 2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Supriya Pal, Jt. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 154

…it’s appeal being heard and considered on merits. In so deciding, we are guided by the ratio of the decisions by the Apex Court in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji [1987] 167 ITR 471 (SC) and Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd v. Nirmala Devi [1979] 118 ITR 507 (SC). In the former, a celebrated decision, the Apex Court clarified a liberal approach to be valid, i.e., in principle, while considering an application for condonation of delay, adopting a justice oriented approach, as a litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay, and between substantial justice and technical considerations, it is…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Granite Gate Properties Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 2239/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Anadi N Mishra

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Sapra, CAFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Saroha, CIT (DR)
Section 271

…e year under consideration and hence, no penalty could be levied for making a bona fide claim by relying on the advice of professionals, for which reliance is placed on the following case laws: >- 274 ITR 603, CIT vs. Deep Tours P Ltd. ( P &H High Court) > -118 ITR 507, Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Nirmala Devi Supreme Court. > -136 ITR 729, CIT vs. Ramniklal D. Mehta (Orissa H.C.) >- 3 ITD (Madras) 221, WTO vs. S. P. Jayakumar 25) Moreover, the issue was only about the year of allowability of such indirect expenditure and as the rate of tax in both the relevant years was the same, therefore,…

Deva International, Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T Cir - 29, Kolkata

In the result appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1464/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Apr 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] Assessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Subhra Biswas, CIT(DR)
Section 143

…d does not mean that a pedantic approach should be taken. The doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense and pragmatic manner. Similar is the ratio laid down in the following decisions Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Nirmala Devi and Ors. 118 ITR 507(SC) Radha Krishna Rai v. Allahabad Bank & Ors. (2009) 9 SCC 733 and Commissioner of Income-tax v. West Bengal Infrastructure Development Finance Corporation Ltd. (2011) 334 ITR 269 (SC). Keeping in mind the decisions referred to above, we are of the view that the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) ought to have been condoned by the CIT(…

Sh. Rajesh Kumar, New Delhi vs. JCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 268/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2009-10

Section 269SSection 271DSection 273B

…hout knowing the stringent provisions of section 269SS and there was a reasonable cause for accepting such loans in cash. The Ld. AR in support of his contention relied on the judgement in the case of Concord of India insurance Co Ltd V/s Smt.Nirmal Devi (SC) 118 ITR 507 and other judgements listed in written submission. 4.4 Alternatively, the Ld. AR submitted that loan of Rs. 1,75,000 received from assessee’s wife Mrs Anjana Sinha was not liable for penalty in view of following case laws: (i) CIT versus Natwarlal Purshottamdas Parekh ( Gujarat High Court) 303 ITR 5 (ii) CIT versus Sunil Kumar Goel ( P & H High…

M/S. Spacevision Impex (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed in the manner as indicated above

ITA 773/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Feb 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. G.D. Agrawal V.P. & Sh. C.M. Garg, J.M Asstt. Year: 2006-07 Spacevision Impex (P) Ltd. Vs Dcit C/O Raj Kumar & Associates, Ca Circle-9(1) 4435/7, Ansari Road, Darya Ganj New Delhi New Delhi Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Raj Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Anima Barnwal, Sr. DR
Section 10(15)Section 271(1)(c)

…,425/- there is no concealment but it is a case of bona-fide error in the calculation which does not attract penalty. In view of the preposition laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Smt Nirmala Devi reported as 118 ITR 507 (SC) and decision of ITAT Mumbai in the case of Perfect Scale Company Pvt. Ltd. 60SOT 255 (Mum-Tribunal). 4. On the issue of penalty imposed on account of disallowance of professional fee of Rs. 7,500/- the Ld AR submitted that the AO opined that it was not incurred for the purpose of business of the assessee and the same was paid to M/s Anil Sa…

Sudha Organics P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 45, Mumbai

Accordingly, the appeals of all the three years are allowed by holding as above”

ITA 3239/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/ I.Ta Nos.3235 To 3241/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2003-04 To 2009-10 बनाम/ M/S. Sudha Organics Pvt. The Dcit, Central Circle-45, Ltd., Mumbai Vs. 1, Dorf Ketal Tower, Orlem, Malad (W), Mumbai-400 064 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aafcs 9904D (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By: Shri Champa Purohit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri R.A. Dhyani सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing :03.02.2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement :10.02.2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: These Appeals By The Assessee Are Preferred Against The Very Same Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-38,Mumbai Dated 23.08.2011 Pertaining To Assessment Years 2003-04 To 2009-10. Since Common Issues Are Involved In All These Appeals, They Were Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

For Appellant: Shri Champa PurohitFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani
Section 23(1)

…hoenix Mills Ltd (supra), on which reliance has been placed, is in favour of the assessee. In this case the ratio of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Nirmala Devi and others, reported in (1979) 118 ITR 507(SC), has been considered, wherein it has been held that the mistake of the counsel may in certain circumstances be taken into account in condoning the delay although there is no general proposition that mistake of counsel by itself is always a sufficient ground. Accordingly, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that there is a mistake of the counsel a…

Sudha Organics P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 45, Mumbai

Accordingly, the appeals of all the three years are allowed by holding as above”

ITA 3235/MUM/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/ I.Ta Nos.3235 To 3241/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2003-04 To 2009-10 बनाम/ M/S. Sudha Organics Pvt. The Dcit, Central Circle-45, Ltd., Mumbai Vs. 1, Dorf Ketal Tower, Orlem, Malad (W), Mumbai-400 064 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aafcs 9904D (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By: Shri Champa Purohit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri R.A. Dhyani सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing :03.02.2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement :10.02.2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: These Appeals By The Assessee Are Preferred Against The Very Same Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-38,Mumbai Dated 23.08.2011 Pertaining To Assessment Years 2003-04 To 2009-10. Since Common Issues Are Involved In All These Appeals, They Were Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

For Appellant: Shri Champa PurohitFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani
Section 23(1)

…hoenix Mills Ltd (supra), on which reliance has been placed, is in favour of the assessee. In this case the ratio of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Nirmala Devi and others, reported in (1979) 118 ITR 507(SC), has been considered, wherein it has been held that the mistake of the counsel may in certain circumstances be taken into account in condoning the delay although there is no general proposition that mistake of counsel by itself is always a sufficient ground. Accordingly, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that there is a mistake of the counsel a…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S Vishu Impex Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the

ITA 3703/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Rajkumar Gupta, Adv
Section 275(1)(c)

…hoenix Mills Ltd (supra), on which reliance has been placed, is in favour of the assessee. In this case the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Nirmala Devi and others, reported in (1979) 118 ITR 507(SC), has been considered, wherein it has been held that the mistake of the counsel may in certain circumstances be taken into account in condoning the delay although there is no general proposition that mistake of counsel by itself is always a sufficient ground. Accordingly, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that there is a mistake of the counsel a…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S Vishu Impex Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the

ITA 2765/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Rajkumar Gupta, Adv
Section 275(1)(c)

…hoenix Mills Ltd (supra), on which reliance has been placed, is in favour of the assessee. In this case the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Nirmala Devi and others, reported in (1979) 118 ITR 507(SC), has been considered, wherein it has been held that the mistake of the counsel may in certain circumstances be taken into account in condoning the delay although there is no general proposition that mistake of counsel by itself is always a sufficient ground. Accordingly, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that there is a mistake of the counsel a…

ITO 14(1)3, Mumbai vs. Ashokkumar M Parikh, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed, whereas appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4986/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainआमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.3708/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.1250/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ Shri Bharatkumar Maneklal The Ito 14(1)(3), Parikh, Mumbai. Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4985/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4986/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ The Ito 14(1)(3), Shri Bharatkumar Mumbai. Maneklal Parikh, Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

For Respondent: Shri Aarsi Prasad (D.R)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 45Section 55(2)(a)

…om) Shyam Gopal Charitable Trust 290 ITR 99 (Del) Deepak Kumar 232 CTR (P&H) 78 Sania Mirza 259 CTR (AP) 386 State of Kerala v. Krishna Kurup Madhava Kurup air 1971 Ker. 211 The Supreme Court in Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Nirmala Devi [1979] 118 ITR 507, has held that legal advice given by the members of the legal profession may sometimes be wrong and even as pronouncement on questions of law by Courts are sometimes wrong. An amount of latitude is expected in such cases for, to err is human and laymen, as litigants are, may legitimately lean on expert counsel in legal as well as in other departm…

ITO 14(1)3, Mumbai vs. Bharatkumar M Parikh, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed, whereas appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4985/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainआमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.3708/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.1250/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ Shri Bharatkumar Maneklal The Ito 14(1)(3), Parikh, Mumbai. Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4985/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4986/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ The Ito 14(1)(3), Shri Bharatkumar Mumbai. Maneklal Parikh, Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

For Respondent: Shri Aarsi Prasad (D.R)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 45Section 55(2)(a)

…om) Shyam Gopal Charitable Trust 290 ITR 99 (Del) Deepak Kumar 232 CTR (P&H) 78 Sania Mirza 259 CTR (AP) 386 State of Kerala v. Krishna Kurup Madhava Kurup air 1971 Ker. 211 The Supreme Court in Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Nirmala Devi [1979] 118 ITR 507, has held that legal advice given by the members of the legal profession may sometimes be wrong and even as pronouncement on questions of law by Courts are sometimes wrong. An amount of latitude is expected in such cases for, to err is human and laymen, as litigants are, may legitimately lean on expert counsel in legal as well as in other departm…