Distributors (Baroda) (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India

155 ITR 120Supreme Court of India1985#386 most cited

What is Distributors (Baroda) (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India authority for?

For computing the deduction under Section 80M, only the net dividend income (gross dividend income after reducing expenses attributable to earning it, as per Section 57(iii) and the principle in Section 80AB) is eligible. The case also holds that tax authorities are not bound to perpetuate an error from a previous assessment year, as each year is a separate unit and consistency cannot override substantive justice.

229

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,154 Indian tax judgments — from 2007 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Distributors (Baroda) (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India · 155 ITR 120 · Section 80M deduction · net dividend income · expenses attributable to dividend · Section 80AB · Section 57(iii) · consistency principle · perpetuate error · assessment year separate unit · judicial conscience · dividend income

Also reported as

1 SCC 4347 CTR 349

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 153DSection 1961Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 40(a)(ia)

Issues it is cited on

section 274(2)section 50(1)section 80absection 80msection 243section 54esection 10(33)section 10(15)section 245hacasus omissussection 14a(1)section 54ec

Judgments citing Distributors (Baroda) (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India

Astt. Commisioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Lucknow vs. M/S U.P Awas Evam Vikas Parishad, Lucknow

In the result, all the grounds taken in the appeals and ground 1 of additional grounds of the Revenue stand dismissed and additional ground

ITA 211/LKW/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow08 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 15Section 2(15)

…ow the registration was granted to these authorities as the same is not pending before us for adjudication. Reliance can be placed upon the decision pronounced by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Distributors (Baroda) (P) Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors. (155 ITR 120) wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that "it is almost as important that the law should be settled permanently as that it should be settled correctly but there may be circumstances where public interest demands that the previous decision be reviewed and reconsidered. The doctrine of stare decises should not deter the Court from overruling an ear…

Astt. Commisioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Lucknow vs. M/S U.P Awas Evam Vikas Parishad, Lucknow

In the result, all the grounds taken in the appeals and ground 1 of additional grounds of the Revenue stand dismissed and additional ground

ITA 210/LKW/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow08 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 15Section 2(15)

…ow the registration was granted to these authorities as the same is not pending before us for adjudication. Reliance can be placed upon the decision pronounced by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Distributors (Baroda) (P) Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors. (155 ITR 120) wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that "it is almost as important that the law should be settled permanently as that it should be settled correctly but there may be circumstances where public interest demands that the previous decision be reviewed and reconsidered. The doctrine of stare decises should not deter the Court from overruling an ear…

Astt. Commisioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Lucknow vs. M/S U.P Awas Evam Vikas Parishad, Lucknow

In the result, all the grounds taken in the appeals and ground 1 of additional grounds of the Revenue stand dismissed and additional ground

ITA 165/LKW/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow08 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 15Section 2(15)

…ow the registration was granted to these authorities as the same is not pending before us for adjudication. Reliance can be placed upon the decision pronounced by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Distributors (Baroda) (P) Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors. (155 ITR 120) wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that "it is almost as important that the law should be settled permanently as that it should be settled correctly but there may be circumstances where public interest demands that the previous decision be reviewed and reconsidered. The doctrine of stare decises should not deter the Court from overruling an ear…

Astt. Commisioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Lucknow vs. M/S U.P Awas Evam Vikas Parishad, Lucknow

In the result, all the grounds taken in the appeals and ground 1 of additional grounds of the Revenue stand dismissed and additional ground

ITA 164/LKW/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow08 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 15Section 2(15)

…ow the registration was granted to these authorities as the same is not pending before us for adjudication. Reliance can be placed upon the decision pronounced by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Distributors (Baroda) (P) Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors. (155 ITR 120) wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that "it is almost as important that the law should be settled permanently as that it should be settled correctly but there may be circumstances where public interest demands that the previous decision be reviewed and reconsidered. The doctrine of stare decises should not deter the Court from overruling an ear…

Astt. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Lucknow vs. M/S U.P Awas Evam Vikas Parishad, Lucknow

In the result, all the grounds taken in the appeals and ground 1 of additional grounds of the Revenue stand dismissed and additional ground

ITA 631/LKW/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow08 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 15Section 2(15)

…ow the registration was granted to these authorities as the same is not pending before us for adjudication. Reliance can be placed upon the decision pronounced by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Distributors (Baroda) (P) Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors. (155 ITR 120) wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that "it is almost as important that the law should be settled permanently as that it should be settled correctly but there may be circumstances where public interest demands that the previous decision be reviewed and reconsidered. The doctrine of stare decises should not deter the Court from overruling an ear…

Astt. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Lucknow vs. M/S U.P Awas Evam Vikas Parishad, Lucknow

In the result, all the grounds taken in the appeals and ground 1 of additional grounds of the Revenue stand dismissed and additional ground

ITA 630/LKW/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow08 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 15Section 2(15)

…ow the registration was granted to these authorities as the same is not pending before us for adjudication. Reliance can be placed upon the decision pronounced by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Distributors (Baroda) (P) Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors. (155 ITR 120) wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that "it is almost as important that the law should be settled permanently as that it should be settled correctly but there may be circumstances where public interest demands that the previous decision be reviewed and reconsidered. The doctrine of stare decises should not deter the Court from overruling an ear…

Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) Delhi vs. Hamdard National Foundation (India)

ITA/144/2021HC Delhi16 Feb 2022

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA

Section 11Section 13(2)(b)Section 13(3)

…Brijlal Lohia & Mahabir Prasad Kemka, Executors of Late Kanailal Lohia, (1972) 4 SCC 432; iii. Income Tax Officer, A Ward, Sitapur v. Murlidhar Bhagwan Das, (1964) 52 ITR 335 (SC); and iv. Distributors (Baroda) Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors., (1986) 1 SCC 43. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant/revenue further submits that in the present case, the „market rent‟, as found by the Assessing Officer, had been confronted to the respondent/assessee, however, the respondent/assessee never asked for the source of information nor This is a digitally signed Judgement. NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/00…

Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) Delhi vs. Hamdrd National Foundation (India)

ITA/115/2021HC Delhi16 Feb 2022

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA

Section 11Section 13(2)(b)Section 13(3)

…Brijlal Lohia & Mahabir Prasad Kemka, Executors of Late Kanailal Lohia, (1972) 4 SCC 432; iii. Income Tax Officer, A Ward, Sitapur v. Murlidhar Bhagwan Das, (1964) 52 ITR 335 (SC); and iv. Distributors (Baroda) Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors., (1986) 1 SCC 43. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant/revenue further submits that in the present case, the „market rent‟, as found by the Assessing Officer, had been confronted to the respondent/assessee, however, the respondent/assessee never asked for the source of information nor This is a digitally signed Judgement. NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/00…

Bombay Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Mumbai vs. ITO (E) 1(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 1174/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Sheth
Section 1Section 11Section 2(15)

…jected. The judicial decisions relied upon by Ld. AR are distinguishable and had been decided without considering the Apex court's decision cited supra. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of A. Distributors (Baroda) Pvt. Ltd vs. Union of India reported in 155 ITR 120 had decided that the powers of the CIT(A) exists to decide the issue which had not been considered by the higher authority. In view of the above, I hold that the appellant's claim u/s 11 is not allowable for the year under consideration i.e for AY 2009-10. Accordingly, grounds of appeal nos. 1 to 3 are dismissed Aggrieved, assessee came in appe…

ITO (E) -1(1), Mumbai vs. Aditya Birla Foundation, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 6279/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: The Hon'Ble Itat In Its Own Case In A.Y.2011-12 Which Is Pending For Adjudication."

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 13(3)Section 25

…THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” Bench, Mumbai Shri Shamim Yahya (AM) & Shri Amarjit Singh (JM) I.T.A. No. 6279/Mum/2019 (Assessment Year 2012-13) ITO(E)-1(1) Aditya Birla Foundation Vs. Room No. 508 C-1, Aditya Birla Centre 5th Floor, Piramal S.K. Aahire Marg, Worli Chambers, Lalbaug Mumbai-400 030. Mumbai-400 012. PAN : AAATA0382P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Ronak Doshi Department by Shri Rajeev Harit Date of Hearing 12.08.2021 Date of Pronouncement 28.10.2021 O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya (AM) :- This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of learned Commissioner of Income…

Bombay Chamber of Commerce & Mackinnon Mackenzie Building, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer (Exe)-1 (1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5832/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आमकय अऩीर िं./ Ita No. 5832/Mum/2019 (ननधाायण वर्ा / Assessment Years 2009-10) Bombay Chamber Of Commerce & The Income-Tax Officer Mackinnon Mackenzie Building, 4, (Exemptions)-1(1), फनाभ/ Room No. 508, 5 Th Floor, Shoorji Vallabhdas Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400 001 Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Vs. Parel, Mumbai-400 012 (अऩीराथी / Appellant) (प्रत्मथी/ Respondent) स्थामी रेखा िं./Pan No. Aabcb2270M अऩीराथी की ओय े/ Appellant By : Shri Niraj Sheth, Ar प्रत्मथी की ओय े/ Respondent By : Ms. Shreekala Pardeshi & Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik, Drs’ ुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing: 03.09.2021 घोर्णा की तायीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 30.09.2021

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Sheth, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Shreekala Pardeshi &
Section 1Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 25

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण “B” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI श्री भहावीय स िंह, उऩाध्मक्ष एविं श्री भनोज कुभाय अग्रवार, रेखा दस्म के भक्ष । BEFORE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VP AND SRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आमकय अऩीर िं./ ITA No. 5832/Mum/2019 (ननधाायण वर्ा / Assessment Years 2009-10) Bombay Chamber of Commerce & The Income-tax Officer Mackinnon Mackenzie Building, 4, (Exemptions)-1(1), फनाभ/ Room No. 508, 5 th Floor, Shoorji Vallabhdas Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400 001 Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Vs. parel, Mumbai-400 012 (अऩीराथी / Appellant) (प्रत्मथी/ Respondent) स्थामी रेखा…

Devgem Seeds and Crop Technology Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-17(1), Hyderabad

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

ITA 2225/HYD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Aug 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuappellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri P.Chandra Sekhar, DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “A” : HYDERABAD (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE) BEFORE SHRI S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Appellant Respondent ITA No. A.Y. Devgen Seeds and Asst.Commissioner of 187/Hyd/17 2012-13 Crop Technology Income Tax, Private Limited, Circle-17(1), Hyderabad Hyderabad 2225/Hyd/17 2013-14 [PAN: AACCD5732D] For Assessee : Shri Nitesh Joshi, AR For Revenue : Shri P.Chandra Sekhar, DR Date of Hearing : 22-06-2021 Date of Pronouncement : 18-08-2021 O R D E R PER S.S.GODARA, J.M. : These two assessee’s appeals for AYs.2012-13 & 20…

Devgen Seeds and Crop Technology Private Limited, Secunderabad, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-17(1) Hyderabad, Hyderabad

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

ITA 187/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Aug 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuappellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri P.Chandra Sekhar, DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “A” : HYDERABAD (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE) BEFORE SHRI S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Appellant Respondent ITA No. A.Y. Devgen Seeds and Asst.Commissioner of 187/Hyd/17 2012-13 Crop Technology Income Tax, Private Limited, Circle-17(1), Hyderabad Hyderabad 2225/Hyd/17 2013-14 [PAN: AACCD5732D] For Assessee : Shri Nitesh Joshi, AR For Revenue : Shri P.Chandra Sekhar, DR Date of Hearing : 22-06-2021 Date of Pronouncement : 18-08-2021 O R D E R PER S.S.GODARA, J.M. : These two assessee’s appeals for AYs.2012-13 & 20…

Technologies Ltd) vs. ACIT

Appeals are allowed

ITA/214/2020HC Delhi05 Jul 2021
For Appellant: -.................................................................... 8For Respondent: - .................................................................. 10
Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 254Section 35D

…cific provision of section 35DD of the Act introduced. 4.7 As far plea of rule of consistency is concerned, we may like to refer to the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Distributors (Baroda) P. Ltd. Vs. Union Of India & Ors. reported in 155 ITR 120, where it is observed if any wrong has been committed, same should not be perpetuated. The relevant observations of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court are reproduced as under: “28. But, even if, in our view, the decision in Cloth Traders' case (supra) is erroneous, the question still remains whether we should overturn it. Ordinarily, we would be rel…

Technologies Ltd) vs. ACIT

Appeals are allowed

ITA/215/2020HC Delhi05 Jul 2021
For Appellant: -.................................................................... 8For Respondent: - .................................................................. 10
Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 254Section 35D

…cific provision of section 35DD of the Act introduced. 4.7 As far plea of rule of consistency is concerned, we may like to refer to the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Distributors (Baroda) P. Ltd. Vs. Union Of India & Ors. reported in 155 ITR 120, where it is observed if any wrong has been committed, same should not be perpetuated. The relevant observations of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court are reproduced as under: “28. But, even if, in our view, the decision in Cloth Traders' case (supra) is erroneous, the question still remains whether we should overturn it. Ordinarily, we would be rel…

Technologies Ltd) vs. ACIT

Appeals are allowed

ITA/213/2020HC Delhi05 Jul 2021
For Appellant: -.................................................................... 8For Respondent: - .................................................................. 10
Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 254Section 35D

…cific provision of section 35DD of the Act introduced. 4.7 As far plea of rule of consistency is concerned, we may like to refer to the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Distributors (Baroda) P. Ltd. Vs. Union Of India & Ors. reported in 155 ITR 120, where it is observed if any wrong has been committed, same should not be perpetuated. The relevant observations of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court are reproduced as under: “28. But, even if, in our view, the decision in Cloth Traders' case (supra) is erroneous, the question still remains whether we should overturn it. Ordinarily, we would be rel…

DCIT (E)-1(1), Mumbai vs. Aditya Birla Foundation, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 4065/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jun 2021AY 2011-12
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 13(3)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145Section 154Section 25

…to know that he is fallible and therefore ever ready to learn, great and honest enough to discard all mere pride of opinion and follow the truth wherever it may lead and courageous enough to knowledge his error”. [Hon'ble Supreme Court in Distributors Baroda (47 CTR 349)]. Further it has been held that once the court comes to a conclusion that a wrong order has been passed it become the solemn duty of the court to rectify the mistake rather than perpetuate the same. [Hotel Balaji & Ors. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. (AIR 1993 SCI 048)]. 12. This aspect is further accentuated on the specific facts of this tr…

The ACIT 2(3), Mumbai vs. M/S. Tata Sonsltd, Mumbai

Appeal stand allowed to that extent

ITA 4041/MUM/2007[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 May 2021AY 2003-2004

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No.4041/Mum/2007 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2003-04) Acit-2(3) M/S. Tata Sons Ltd. बिाम/ Room No.555 Bombay House Aaykar Bhavan 24, Homi Modi Street Vs. Mumbai – 400 020. Fort, Mumbai – 400 001. स्थायीलेखा िं./ जीआइआर िं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaact-4060-A (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No.3664/Mum/2007 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2003-04) M/S. Tata Sons Ltd. Acit-2(3) बिाम/ Bombay House Room No.555 24, Homi Modi Street Aaykar Bhavan Vs. Fort, Mumbai – 400 001. Mumbai – 400 020. स्थायीलेखा िं./ जीआइआर िं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaact-4060-A (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Ms. Aarti Vissanji -Ld.Ar Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Singh-Ld.Cit-Dr ुनवाई की तारीख/ : 23/03/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 05/05/2021 Date Of Pronouncement Assessment Year 2003-04

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Vissanji -Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Singh-Ld.CIT-DR
Section 10ASection 10BSection 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 80MSection 90

…see. The Ld. CIT-DR also submitted that Sec.14A would be applicable since deduction u/s 80M is claimed by the assessee. The deduction u/s 80M is available only to net dividend income as per the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in Distributors (Baroda) Pvt. Ltd. 155 ITR 120 as well as the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in Hero Cycles (243 Taxman 28). Assessment Year 2003-04 10.3 The Ld. AR, in the rejoinder, submitted that the provisions of Sec.14A would not apply in this year in case of deductions allowable under Chapter VIA. The amount on which deductions under Chapter VIA is allowed forms part…

DCIT Cent. Cir. -5(3) (Erstwhile DCIT Cent. Cir. -36), Mumbai vs. Sumer Builders, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5130/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri M. Balaganesh, Hon'Blem/S. Sumer Builders V. Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Central Circle – 5(3) 201, Commerce House {Erstwhile Dcit, Central Circle – 36} 140, Nm Road, Fort Room No. 1906, 19Th Floor Mumbai – 400 023 Air India Building, Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aaafs2829R

For Appellant: Shri Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Shri A. Mohan
Section 36(1)(iii)

…y provision has not been brought to the notice of Court. [Union on India & Anr. Vs Reghubir Singh (SC) 178 ITR 548, Sri Agasthyar Trust Vs CIT (SC) 236 ITR 23].  To perpetuate an error in no heroism [Distributors (Baroda) P. Ltd. Vs Union of India &ors. (SC) 155 ITR 120]. To justify that the income in dispute (unaccounted income brought out by a search under section 132, which at the primary stage itself is not a ‘mistaken belief’ eventhough this is countered by assessee with the argument that the claim made in appeal is supplemental to an admitted issue and is a ‘mistaken belief’, in my view the argument may no…

Sumer Builders, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 5(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4915/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri M. Balaganesh, Hon'Blem/S. Sumer Builders V. Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Central Circle – 5(3) 201, Commerce House {Erstwhile Dcit, Central Circle – 36} 140, Nm Road, Fort Room No. 1906, 19Th Floor Mumbai – 400 023 Air India Building, Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aaafs2829R

For Appellant: Shri Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Shri A. Mohan
Section 36(1)(iii)

…y provision has not been brought to the notice of Court. [Union on India & Anr. Vs Reghubir Singh (SC) 178 ITR 548, Sri Agasthyar Trust Vs CIT (SC) 236 ITR 23].  To perpetuate an error in no heroism [Distributors (Baroda) P. Ltd. Vs Union of India &ors. (SC) 155 ITR 120]. To justify that the income in dispute (unaccounted income brought out by a search under section 132, which at the primary stage itself is not a ‘mistaken belief’ eventhough this is countered by assessee with the argument that the claim made in appeal is supplemental to an admitted issue and is a ‘mistaken belief’, in my view the argument may no…