How many judgments cite Dattatraya Gopal Bhotte v. CIT?

23 judgments on BharatTax cite Dattatraya Gopal Bhotte v. CIT (150 ITR 460), spanning 2015 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Dattatraya Gopal Bhotte v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 139(1), Section 10(38), Section 143(1), Section 147, Section 148, Section 149(1)(b).

Dattatraya Gopal Bhotte v. CIT

150 ITR 460High Court1984#4972 most cited

What is Dattatraya Gopal Bhotte v. CIT authority for?

Central Board of Revenue (now CBDT) circulars that confer a benefit on the assessee are binding on income-tax officers and must be followed, even if they deviate from the strict interpretation of the law.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Dattatraya Gopal Bhotte v. CIT · 150 ITR 460 · CBDT circular · binding on AO · benefit to assessee · departmental instructions

Sections most often in play

Section 139(1)Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 147 Section 148 Section 149(1)(b)Section 154 Section 164(3)

Issues it is cited on

section 31(3)section 139(3)section 147(b)section 31 full and true disclosure section 139(5)indexed cost of acquisition section 45 section 36(1)(vii)kelvinator section 251(1)section 251(1)(a)

Judgments citing Dattatraya Gopal Bhotte v. CIT

Mall of Jaipur Owners Welfare Association, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-6, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 333/JPR/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Sept 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Mittal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT a

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBkSM+ deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 333/JPR/2025 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2024-15 Mall of Jaipur Owners Welfare cuke The DCIT, Association Vs. Circle-6, Jaipur. Plot No. 01, Kuber Complex Scheme Gandhi Path, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AANAM9374M vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(3), Mumbai vs. Phulchand Exports Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 3103/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Shankarlal Jain & Shri Satish KumarFor Respondent: Shri R.A Dhyani, (CIT-DR)

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 36(1)(iii)

…the Apex Court held that purpose of tax proceeding is to determine correct taxable income while the jurisdictional High Court held that a fresh claim can be made in appeal even if not considered by the AO. Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in Dattaray GopalBhotte 150 ITR 460 (Bom) quoted CBDT circular no 14-(x135) of 1955 advising As not to Page | 13 ITA No. 2415, 3102, 3103/Mum/2025 Α.Υ. 2018-19, 2019-20 Phulchand Exports Private Limited, Mumbai take advantage of the ignorance of an assessee as to his rights and all reliefs due to assessee to be allowed. 18.1 It was further submitted before the ld.CIT(A) that the D…

ACIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur vs. Unimax Buildestate Pvt Ltd, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the revenue as well as cross objection of the

ITA 103/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 May 2025AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Swapnil Parihar, JCIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 250

…ITA No 05/PN/2016 4. Nitin Killawala& Associates vs ITO in ITA No 1611/M/2013 5. CIT Vs. Nagesh Knitwears Pvt. Ltd. 345 ITR 135 6. CIT Vs. Mrs. Avtar Mohan Singh 136 ITR 645 7. Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. Vs. CIT 343 ITR 0270 8. Dattatraya Gopal Bhotts Vs. CIT 150 ITR 460 9. Sukhdham Infrastructure LLP Vs CIT-ITA No 2611/kol/2019 10. Manju Kaushik vs CIT in ITA No 1419/JP/2019 11. Parbir Das vs CIT in ITA No 395/Gau/2019 12. Urban Improvement co vs CIT in ITA No 7496/Del/2019 13. Kintukumar Ambalal vs DCIT in ITA No 348/Ahd/2019 (2) The relevant documents / observations in addition to the detailed submission made…

Divyadatta Digamber Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Limited Satara, Koregaon vs. Income Tax Officer, Satara

The appeal of the assessee is ALLOWED in above terms

ITA 651/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 651/Pun/2024 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Divyadatta Digamber Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Moti Heights, Azaad Chowk, New St-Stand, Koregaon, Satara-415501 Pan: Aaeas1871L . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

For Appellant: Mr Pr[mo^ Scnat_ [‘L^. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Uma Shankar Prasad [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 80Section 80ASection 80A(5)Section 80P(2)

…art of Revenue Authorities. The scope of the former circular elaborately finds explained in ‘CIT Vs Ahmedabad Keiser-E-Hind Mills Co. Ltd’ [1981, 128 ITR 486 (Gud)], ‘Parekh Brothers Vs CIT’ [1984, 15 Taxman 539 (Ker)], ‘Dattatraya Gopal Shette Vs CIT’ [1984, 150 ITR 460 (Bom)], ‘Rajeev Biswas Vs UOI’ [2023, 459 ITR 36 (Cal)], which compels the tax authorities to allow the correct entitlements to the taxpayers assessee in accordance with law removing the error/mistake if any made in the return of income. ITAT-Pune Page 14 of 16 Divyadatta Digamber Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Vs ITO ITA No.651/PUN/2024 AY:2013-14…

Omkar 1998 Co Op Housing Society Ltd, College Road vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Nashik, Gadkari Chowk

The appeal of the assessee is ALLOWED and all the grounds stands adjudicated accordingly

ITA 284/PUN/2024[A.Y. 2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 May 2024

Bench: Hon’Ble S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 0284/Pun/2024 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: None for the AssesseeFor Respondent: Mr Ramnath Murkunde [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 80P(2)(d)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PUNE ‘A’ BENCH, PUNE BEFORE HON’BLE S. S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. D. PADMAHSHALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपऩल सं. / ITA No. 0284/PUN/2024 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Omkar 1998 Co-op. Housing Society Patil Lane No-3, College Road, Nashik-422005 PAN: AAAAO3664M . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिधम / V/s Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Nashik . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent द्वधरध / Appearances Assessee by : None for the Assessee Revenue by : Mr Ramnath Murkunde [‘Ld. DR’] सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of conclusive Hearing : 28/05//2024 घोषणा क…

ACIT, CC - I (2), Chennai vs. M/S. Balaji Hotels & Enterprises Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 209/CHNY/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Feb 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri V. Nandakumar, CITFor Respondent: Shri D. Anand, Advocate

Section 139Section 139(5)Section 143(3)

…(mum) (ii). Chicago Pneumatic India Ltd. vs. DCIT [2007| 15 SOT 252 (Mum); and (iii). CIT vs. Ramco International (2009] 180 Taxman 584 (Punj. & Har.) (iy). CBDT Circular No. 14 (XL-35) of 1955 dated April 11, 1955; (u). Dattatraya Gopal Shette vs. CIT [1984] 150 ITR 460 (Bom) (vi). Cholkshi Metal Refinery vs. CIT (1977) 107 ITR 63 (Guj.): (vii). CIT vs. Shri. Someshwar Sahakari Karkhana Ltd. (1989) 177 ITR 443 (Bom) (affirmed, by the Supreme Court in CIT vs. Mahendra Mills [2000] 243 ITR 56 (SC) (viii). ITO vs. Cosmic Engg. Co. [1984] 20 TTJ (Ahd.) 271, 273. In view of the above discussion, more particularly the…

ACIT, CC - I (2), Chennai vs. M/S. Balaji Hotels & Enterprises Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 208/CHNY/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Feb 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri V. Nandakumar, CITFor Respondent: Shri D. Anand, Advocate

Section 139Section 139(5)Section 143(3)

ACIT, CC - I (2), Chennai vs. M/S. Balaji Hotels & Enterprises Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 207/CHNY/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Feb 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri V. Nandakumar, CITFor Respondent: Shri D. Anand, Advocate

Section 139Section 139(5)Section 143(3)

Nikunj Kaushik Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-32(1), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed on merits

ITA 2919/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyalnikunj Kaushik Shah, 201, Laxmi Palace Chsl, Vileparle (East), Mumbai- 400057, Pan: Apeps6446R ...... Appellant Vs. Ito-32(1), R. No. 335, Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Bandra (E) Mumbai- 400051 ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Kothari, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha, Ld. DR

Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 149(1)(b)Section 250Section 68Section 69C

…ons reported in CIT v. B.M. Edward, India Sea Food [1979] 119 ITR 334 (FB) (Ker.), CIT v. Venkiteswaran [1979] 120 ITR 675 (Ker.) and CWT v. Gammon (India) (P.) Ltd. [1981] 130 ITR 471 (Bom.).’ (p. 118) EXPLAINED IN - In Dattatraya Gopal Shette v. CIT [1984] 150 ITR 460 (Bom.), the above circular was referred to with the following observations: "It is now well settled that even if the contents of a circular may amount to a deviation on a point of law, a circular of the Central Board of Revenue which confers some benefit on the assessee is binding on all officers concerned with the execution of the I.T. Act; and…

Sushil Kumar Marlecha, Pali vs. Deputy/Asstt, CIT (CPC-TDS) / ITO, TDS-1, Ghaziabad / Jodhpur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 123/JODH/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur04 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Its Hearing Before Your Honour.”

Section 200Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 201Section 205CSection 206CSection 234E

…he failure to deduct income-tax. Further, the liability is imposed on the person paying interest and the section should be construed strictly and reasonably. The Bombay High Court in the case of Dattatraya Gopal Shette vs. CIT (1984) 41 CTR (Bom) 393 : (1984) 150 ITR 460 (Bom), has also taken the same view. The Bombay High Court was dealing with a case where an application for renewal of registration was not signed by one of the partners and it was rejected on the ground that the application was defective. The question arose whether the action of the ITO was justified and whether the ITO was required filed for re…

ACIT, Ncc - 11 (1), Chennai vs. Shri Anil Kumar Shantichand Mehta, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 302/CHNY/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.302/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Shri Anil Kumar Shantichand Mehta, Income Tax, No. 196, Govindappa Naicken Street, Non Corporate Circle 11(1), George Town, Chennai 600 001. Chennai 600 006. [Pan:Aavps4928E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Anand, Advdocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 02.08.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.09.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 13, Chennai, Dated 21.11.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2016-17. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: 1. The Order Of The Learned Cit (A) Is Contrary To Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Cit(A) Erroneously Held That The Assessee Had Not Claimed Exemption U/S.10(37) [P.8.2] Though The Assessee, Vide His Letter Dated 26-12-2018 Stated "The Compensation Of Rs.7,62,40,126/- Received Was Claimed Exempt U/S.10(37), However, It Was Erroneously Omitted To Be Mentioned In The Return Of Income Filed."

For Appellant: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCITFor Respondent: Shri D. Anand, Advdocate

Section 10(37)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 34Section 45Section 57

…Emerson Network Power India (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT [2009J 27 SOT 593 (mum) (ii). Chicago Pneumatic India Ltd. vs. DCIT [2007] 15 SOT 252 (Mum); and (iii). CIT vs. Ramco International [2009J 180 Taxman 584 (Punj. & Har.) (iv). Dattatraya Gopal Shette vs. CIT [1984J 150 ITR 460 (Bom) (v). Chokshi Metal Refinery vs. CIT [1977] 107 ITR 63 (Guj.); (vi). CIT vs. Shri. Someshwar Sahakari Karkhana Ltd. [1989]177 ITR 443 (Bom) (affirmed, by the Supreme Court in CIT vs. Mahendra Mills [2000J 243 ITR 56 (SC) (vii). ITO vs. Cosmic Engg. CO. [1984J 20 TTJ (Ahd.) 271, 273. All the aforesaid case laws also hold that the CIT has the…

Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(2), Hyderabad vs. R P Projects Private Limited, Hyderabad

ITA 26/HYD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Feb 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S.Godara

For Appellant: Shri Biswal Narahari, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…-104) and Bombay Cloth Syndicate vs CIT reported in 214 ITR 210 Hon'ble Bombay High Court have held that Order passed not following Instruction of CBDT is void and bad in law. 11.2 Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Dattatraya Gopal Shette v. CIT 11984] 150 ITR 460 has held that (headnote) : "It is now well-settled that even if the Contents of a circular may amount to a deviation of a point of low, a circular of the Central Board of Revenue which confers some benefit on the assessee is binding on all officers concerned with the execution of the Income-tax Act; and they must carry out their duties in the lig…

Bnp Paribas India Holding P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT -14(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1496/MUM/2020[2017-78]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2020AY 2017-78

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Farrokh V. Irani , ARFor Respondent: Shri Rahul Raman, CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 156Section 234BSection 234C

…t or at a higher rate merely because assessee, under a mistaken belief or due to an error had offered income for taxation at that amount or that rate. In fact, we find that the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Dattatraya Gopal Bhotte Vs. CIT (1984) 150 ITR 460 (Bom), by referring to the CBR Circular No. 14 (XL-35) of 1955, has held, that the officers of the department must not take advantage of the ignorance of an assessee as to his rights, and are under an obligation to assist a taxpayer in every reasonable way, particularly in the matter of claiming and securing reliefs. It was observed by the Hon‘bl…

M/S. Kohli Estates Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 410/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 May 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 410/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 M/S Kohli Estates Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, 80, Scindia House, Ward-14(4), New Delhi-110001 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaack3430D Assessee By : Sh. G. S. Kohli, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Rakesh Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.02.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 05.05.2020

For Appellant: Sh. G. S. Kohli, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Rakesh Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 10Section 2(14)Section 40a

…ce of an assessee to his rights particularly where some refund or relief is due to assessee." Copy of circular placed on Page 78 of Paper Book. The said circular has been followed giving the reference of the said circular by 243 ITR 56 (41-60) Supreme Court 150 ITR 460 (61-64) Bombay High Court 10 Kohli Estates Pvt. Ltd. It will be relevant to state here that the CIT (Appeal) to strengthen his order has cited 2cases where the facts are absolutely different to the appellant's case as in cited cases the "business income" is quite apparent. The learned C.I.T. (Appeal) cited the case 73 ITR 735 (65-73) Supreme Cou…

Nilesh Vasant Shende, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 670/PUN/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jun 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.670/Pun/2016 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Shri Nilesh Vasant Shende, Mzsk & Associates Chartered Accountants, Level-3, Business Bay, Plot No.84, Wellesley Road, Near Rto, Pune-411 001. Pan : Anxps3098L .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S.

For Appellant: Shri Neelesh KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Vishwas Mundhe

Section 143(2)

…taxpayers. For this proposition, Ld. Counsel relied on the following case laws : 1.CIT Vs. Nagesh Knitwears Pvt. Ltd. 345 ITR 135 2.CIT Vs. Mrs. Avtar Mohan Singh 136 ITR 645 3.Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. Vs. CIT 343 ITR 0270 4 .Dattatraya Gopal Bhotts Vs. CIT 150 ITR 460 8. Ld. Counsel also argued stating that the Board granted a provision to convert a limited scrutiny case to the unlimited one subject to the approval of the administrative CIT. Despite the same, the AO failed to comply with the same and AO assumed all powers in making addition outside the limited scrutiny norms. Therefore, Ld. Counsel argued tha…

Mr. Manoj Kumar Nayak, Bhubaneswar vs. DDIT, International Taxation, Bhubaneswar

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

ITA 389/CTK/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack17 May 2018AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri S.C.Bhadra, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, DR

Section 143(1)Section 154(2)

…rly the Rajkot Bench of the Tribunal in case of ACIT Vs. Rupam Impex, ITA No.472/RJT/2014 for the assessment year 2008-2009 17 order dated 21.01.2016, relying on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Dattatraya Gopal Bhotte vs. CIT [(1984) 150 ITR 460 (Bom), has held as under :- ―7. When this appeal was called out for hearing, Shri Anjaria, learned Departmental Representative, still proceeded with justifying the stand of the Assessing Officer. When we put it to him as to how could the Assessing Officer on one hand agree that the figures set out in his computation of taxable income in the asses…

Suresh Jugraj Mutha, Dhule vs. Additional Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vi Kas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No.05/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 वष"

For Appellant: Dr. V.L. JainFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Aggarwal

Section 28Section 54

…ayers. For this proposition, Ld. Counsel relied on the following case laws : 1. CIT Vs. Nagesh Knitwears Pvt. Ltd. 345 ITR 135 2. CIT Vs. Mrs. Avtar Mohan Singh 136 ITR 645 3. Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. Vs. CIT 343 ITR 0270 4 . Dattatraya Gopal Bhotts Vs. CIT 150 ITR 460 8. Ld. Counsel also argued stating that the Board granted a provision to convert a limited scrutiny case to the unlimited one subject to the approval of the administrative CIT. Despite the same, the AO failed to comply with the same and AO assumed all powers in making addition outside the limited scrutiny norms. Therefore, Ld. Counsel argued…

Drawmet Wires Pvt. Ltd., Alwar vs. ACIT, Alwar

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

ITA 442/JPR/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Oct 2017AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani (CA)For Respondent: Shri Sailendra Sharma (Addl.CIT)

Section 154

…eded even for justifying this approach to the taxpayers, one need not look beyond the circulars issued by the CBDT itself. In Circular No. 14, which has been taken note of by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Dattatraya Gopal Bhotte vs. CIT [(1984) 150 ITR 460 (Bom)], the Board has these words of advice for the field officers : "..................Officers of the Department must not take advantage of ignorance of an assessee as to his rights. It is one of their duties to assist taxpayer in every reasonable way, particularly in the matter of claiming and securing any relief and in this regard the officer…

Cpl Tannery, Kolkata vs. ACIT, (CPC)/ITO, WD-33(4), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 485/KOL/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Apr 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri M. Balaganesh, I.T.A. No. 485/Kol/2014 Assessment Years: 2009-10 C.P.L. Tannery Acit(Cpc), Bangalore -Vs- [Pan :Aabf8416H] (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 250

…needed even for justifying this approach to the taxpayers, one need not look beyond the circulars issued by the CBDT itself. In Circular No. 14, which has been taken note of by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Dattatraya Gopal Bhotte v. CIT [1984] 150 ITR 460 the Board has these words of advice for the field. officers : “. . . . . Officers of the Department must not take advantage of ignorance of an assessee as to his rights. It is one of their duties to assist taxpayer in every reasonable way, particularly in the matter of claiming and securing any relief and in this regard the officers should. take…

M/S. Ismail Abdulkarim Balwa, Mumbai vs. The DCIT RG 24(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, as above

ITA 2680/MUM/2008[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2016AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singh: (A.Y : 2005-06) Mr. Ismail Abdulkarim Balwa Vs. Dcit, Range-24(3), Mumbai A.K. Industrial Estate, (Respondent) Opp. A.K. Tower, S.V. Road, Goregaon (West), Mumbai - 62 Pan : Aabpb7570M (Appellant) : (A.Y : 2005-06) Mr. Hussein Abdulkarim Balwa Vs. Dcit, Range-24(3), Mumbai A.K. Industrial Estate, (Respondent) Opp. A.K. Tower, S.V. Road, Goregaon (West), Mumbai - 62 Pan : Aabpb7572K (Appellant)

For Respondent: Shri M. Dayasagar (CIT-DR)

Section 143(3)Section 260ASection 32

…position being otherwise. In this context, he has referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Chokshi Metal Refinery, 107 ITR 63 (Guj) and also the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Dattatraya Gopal Shette, 150 ITR 460 (Bom) wherein having regard to the CBDT Circular No. 14(XL-35) of 1955 dated 11.4.1955 it has been held that the Revenue is not to take advantage of an assessee’s ignorance in order to collect more tax out of him than what is legitimate. 11. Further, the learned representative for the assessee has referred to the terms and conditions of the Tena…