Dy. CST v. Sreeni Printers

67 SCC 279Reported decision1987#3246 most cited
37

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 132(4)Section 147Section 153CSection 2(47)(v)Section 2(47)(vi)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 131

Issues it is cited on

section 2(7)section 132(2)section 132(1)(a)section 153(a)(1)section 2(47)(v)section 250(1)section 45(2)annual letting valuejoint development agreementjdapercentage completion methodsection 145(1)

Judgments citing Dy. CST v. Sreeni Printers

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BENGALURU vs. MATHIKERE RAMAIAH SEETHARAM, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1297/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

For Appellant: Shri H.N Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Muthu Shankar, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 2(47)(v)

…General Reinsurance Co. Ltd. [1971] 81 ITR 303 (Delhi), CIT v. Archana R. Dhanwatey [1982] 136 ITR 355 (Bom.). 32.If particular levy is not permitted under the Act, tax cannot be levied applying the doctrine of estoppel. (See Dy. CST v. Sreeni Printers [1987] 67 SCC 279. This Court in the case of Nirmala L. Mehta v. A. Balasubramaniam, CIT [2004] 269 ITR 1 has held that there cannot be any estoppel against the statute. Article 265 of the Constitution of India in unmistakable terms provides that no tax shall be levied or collected except by authority of law. Acquiescence cannot take away from a party the relief th…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BENGALURU vs. MATHIKERE RAMAIAH SEETHARAM, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1296/BANG/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

For Appellant: Shri H.N Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Muthu Shankar, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 2(47)(v)

…General Reinsurance Co. Ltd. [1971] 81 ITR 303 (Delhi), CIT v. Archana R. Dhanwatey [1982] 136 ITR 355 (Bom.). 32.If particular levy is not permitted under the Act, tax cannot be levied applying the doctrine of estoppel. (See Dy. CST v. Sreeni Printers [1987] 67 SCC 279. This Court in the case of Nirmala L. Mehta v. A. Balasubramaniam, CIT [2004] 269 ITR 1 has held that there cannot be any estoppel against the statute. Article 265 of the Constitution of India in unmistakable terms provides that no tax shall be levied or collected except by authority of law. Acquiescence cannot take away from a party the relief th…

MATHIKERE RAMAIAH SEETHARAM,MATHIKERE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1286/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

For Appellant: Shri H.N Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Muthu Shankar, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 2(47)(v)

…General Reinsurance Co. Ltd. [1971] 81 ITR 303 (Delhi), CIT v. Archana R. Dhanwatey [1982] 136 ITR 355 (Bom.). 32.If particular levy is not permitted under the Act, tax cannot be levied applying the doctrine of estoppel. (See Dy. CST v. Sreeni Printers [1987] 67 SCC 279. This Court in the case of Nirmala L. Mehta v. A. Balasubramaniam, CIT [2004] 269 ITR 1 has held that there cannot be any estoppel against the statute. Article 265 of the Constitution of India in unmistakable terms provides that no tax shall be levied or collected except by authority of law. Acquiescence cannot take away from a party the relief th…

DCIT, CC-2(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. MATHIKERE RAMAIAH SEETHARAM, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1028/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

For Appellant: Shri H.N Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Muthu Shankar, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 2(47)(v)

…General Reinsurance Co. Ltd. [1971] 81 ITR 303 (Delhi), CIT v. Archana R. Dhanwatey [1982] 136 ITR 355 (Bom.). 32.If particular levy is not permitted under the Act, tax cannot be levied applying the doctrine of estoppel. (See Dy. CST v. Sreeni Printers [1987] 67 SCC 279. This Court in the case of Nirmala L. Mehta v. A. Balasubramaniam, CIT [2004] 269 ITR 1 has held that there cannot be any estoppel against the statute. Article 265 of the Constitution of India in unmistakable terms provides that no tax shall be levied or collected except by authority of law. Acquiescence cannot take away from a party the relief th…

DCIT, CC- 2(1), BLR, BENGALURU vs. MATHIKERE RAMAIAH SEETHARAM, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1027/BANG/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

For Appellant: Shri H.N Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Muthu Shankar, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 2(47)(v)

…General Reinsurance Co. Ltd. [1971] 81 ITR 303 (Delhi), CIT v. Archana R. Dhanwatey [1982] 136 ITR 355 (Bom.). 32.If particular levy is not permitted under the Act, tax cannot be levied applying the doctrine of estoppel. (See Dy. CST v. Sreeni Printers [1987] 67 SCC 279. This Court in the case of Nirmala L. Mehta v. A. Balasubramaniam, CIT [2004] 269 ITR 1 has held that there cannot be any estoppel against the statute. Article 265 of the Constitution of India in unmistakable terms provides that no tax shall be levied or collected except by authority of law. Acquiescence cannot take away from a party the relief th…

INDACO JEANS PRIVATE LIMITED,GOREGOAN EAST vs. WARD 6(3)(2), AAYAKRBHAVAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee vide

ITA 80/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

For Appellant: Ashwin ChhagFor Respondent: H.M. Bhatt
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…nce Co. Ltd, (1971) 81 ITR 303, CIT vs. Archana R. Dhanwate (1982) 136 ITR 355 (Bom). 32. If particular levy is not permitted under the Act, tax cannot be levied applying the doctrine of estoppel. (See Dy. Commissioner of Sales Tax vs. Sreeni Printers (1987) 67 SCC 279.” Further on the issue of delay in filing the appeal. The decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vedabai @ Vaijayanatabai Baburao Patil vs Shantaram Baburao Patil Appeal 4494 of 2001is reproduced as under: “In exercising discretion under Section 5 of the Limitation Act the Courts should adopt a pragmatic approach. A distinction must be…

INDACO JEANS PRIVATE LIMITED,GOREGAON EAST vs. I.T.O 6(3)(2), AAYAKAR BHAVAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee vide

ITA 79/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

For Appellant: Ashwin ChhagFor Respondent: H.M. Bhatt
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…nce Co. Ltd, (1971) 81 ITR 303, CIT vs. Archana R. Dhanwate (1982) 136 ITR 355 (Bom). 32. If particular levy is not permitted under the Act, tax cannot be levied applying the doctrine of estoppel. (See Dy. Commissioner of Sales Tax vs. Sreeni Printers (1987) 67 SCC 279.” Further on the issue of delay in filing the appeal. The decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vedabai @ Vaijayanatabai Baburao Patil vs Shantaram Baburao Patil Appeal 4494 of 2001is reproduced as under: “In exercising discretion under Section 5 of the Limitation Act the Courts should adopt a pragmatic approach. A distinction must be…

M/S. TRISHUL BUILDTECH & INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.,,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 109/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Nov 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri A. Shankar, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R
Section 250

…neral Reinsurance Co. Ltd. [1971] 81 ITR 303 (Delhi), CIT v. Archana R. Dhanwatey [1982] 136 ITR 355 (Bom.). 32. If particular levy is not permitted under the Act, tax cannot be levied applying the doctrine of estoppel. (See Dy. CST v. Sreeni Printers [1987] 67 SCC 279. 33. This Court in the case of Nirmala L. Mehta v. A. Balasubramaniam, CIT [2004] 269 ITR 1 has held that there cannot be any estoppel against the statute. Article 265 of the Constitution of India in unmistakable terms provides that no tax shall be levied or collected except by authority of law. Acquiescence cannot take away from a party the relie…

M/S. TRISHUL BUILDTECH & INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.,,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 108/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri A. Shankar, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R
Section 250

…neral Reinsurance Co. Ltd. [1971] 81 ITR 303 (Delhi), CIT v. Archana R. Dhanwatey [1982] 136 ITR 355 (Bom.). 32. If particular levy is not permitted under the Act, tax cannot be levied applying the doctrine of estoppel. (See Dy. CST v. Sreeni Printers [1987] 67 SCC 279. 33. This Court in the case of Nirmala L. Mehta v. A. Balasubramaniam, CIT [2004] 269 ITR 1 has held that there cannot be any estoppel against the statute. Article 265 of the Constitution of India in unmistakable terms provides that no tax shall be levied or collected except by authority of law. Acquiescence cannot take away from a party the relie…

M/S. TRISHUL BUILDTECH & INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.,,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 107/BANG/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri A. Shankar, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R
Section 250

…neral Reinsurance Co. Ltd. [1971] 81 ITR 303 (Delhi), CIT v. Archana R. Dhanwatey [1982] 136 ITR 355 (Bom.). 32. If particular levy is not permitted under the Act, tax cannot be levied applying the doctrine of estoppel. (See Dy. CST v. Sreeni Printers [1987] 67 SCC 279. 33. This Court in the case of Nirmala L. Mehta v. A. Balasubramaniam, CIT [2004] 269 ITR 1 has held that there cannot be any estoppel against the statute. Article 265 of the Constitution of India in unmistakable terms provides that no tax shall be levied or collected except by authority of law. Acquiescence cannot take away from a party the relie…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCEL-2(1), BANGALORE vs. SRI MATHIKERE RAMAIAH SEETHARAM, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the COs filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 544/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H. Nagin Khincha &For Respondent: Shri M. Mathivanan, D.R
Section 131Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 45(2)

…s.542 to 544/Bang/2021 & CO Nos.17 to 19/Bang/2021 Sri Mathikere Ramaiah Seetharam, Bangalore Page 81 of 96 32. If particular levy is not permitted under the Act, tax cannot be levied applying the doctrine of estoppel. (See Dy. CST v. Sreeni Printers [1987] 67 SCC 279. 33. This Court in the case of Nirmala L. Mehta v. A. Balasubramaniam, CIT [2004] 269 ITR 1 has held that there cannot be any estoppel against the statute. Article 265 of the Constitution of India in unmistakable terms provides that no tax shall be levied or collected except by authority of law. Acquiescence cannot take away from a party the relie…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCEL-2(1), BANGALORE vs. SRI MATHIKERE RAMAIAH SEETHARAM, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the COs filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 543/BANG/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H. Nagin Khincha &For Respondent: Shri M. Mathivanan, D.R
Section 131Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 45(2)

…s.542 to 544/Bang/2021 & CO Nos.17 to 19/Bang/2021 Sri Mathikere Ramaiah Seetharam, Bangalore Page 81 of 96 32. If particular levy is not permitted under the Act, tax cannot be levied applying the doctrine of estoppel. (See Dy. CST v. Sreeni Printers [1987] 67 SCC 279. 33. This Court in the case of Nirmala L. Mehta v. A. Balasubramaniam, CIT [2004] 269 ITR 1 has held that there cannot be any estoppel against the statute. Article 265 of the Constitution of India in unmistakable terms provides that no tax shall be levied or collected except by authority of law. Acquiescence cannot take away from a party the relie…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCEL-2(1), BANGALORE vs. SRI MATHIKERE RAMAIAH SEETHARAM, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the COs filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 542/BANG/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H. Nagin Khincha &For Respondent: Shri M. Mathivanan, D.R
Section 131Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 45(2)

…s.542 to 544/Bang/2021 & CO Nos.17 to 19/Bang/2021 Sri Mathikere Ramaiah Seetharam, Bangalore Page 81 of 96 32. If particular levy is not permitted under the Act, tax cannot be levied applying the doctrine of estoppel. (See Dy. CST v. Sreeni Printers [1987] 67 SCC 279. 33. This Court in the case of Nirmala L. Mehta v. A. Balasubramaniam, CIT [2004] 269 ITR 1 has held that there cannot be any estoppel against the statute. Article 265 of the Constitution of India in unmistakable terms provides that no tax shall be levied or collected except by authority of law. Acquiescence cannot take away from a party the relie…

ITO-15(2)(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S PRAVIR POLYMERS PVT LTD., MUMBAI

ITA 2595/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Income Tax Officer-15(2)(4), M/S Pravir Polymers Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 360, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. 601/602, Delta, Central Avenue, Road, Marine Lines, Vs. Technology Street, Hiranandani Mumbai-400020. Garden Powai, Mumbai-400076. Pan No. Aaacp 4621 K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivram, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. C.T. Mathews, DR
Section 114Section 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 153C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “C” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Income Tax Officer-15(2)(4), M/s Pravir Polymers Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 360, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. 601/602, Delta, Central Avenue, Road, Marine Lines, Vs. Technology Street, Hiranandani Mumbai-400020. Garden Powai, Mumbai-400076. PAN No. AAACP 4621 K Appellant Respondent CO No. 103/MUM/2021 (ITA No. 2595/MUM/2019) Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/s Pravir Polymers Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax Officer-15(2)(4), 601/602, Delta, Central Avenue, Room No. 360, Aa…

JITEN BHAVANJI VORA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC- 7(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 6670/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2020AY 2016-17
Section 132Section 271A

…eneral Reinsurance Co. Ltd. [1971] 81 ITR 303 (Delhi), CIT v. Archana R. Dhanwatey [1982] 136 ITR 355(Bom.). 32. If particular levy is not permitted under the Act, tax cannot be levied applying the doctrine of estoppel. (See Dy. CST v. Sreeni Printers [1987] 67 SCC 279. 33. This Court in the case of Nirmala L. Mehta v. A. Balasubramaniam, CIT [2004] 269 ITR l(Bom)(HC) has held that there cannot be any estoppel against the statute. Article 265 of the Constitution of India in unmistakable terms provides that no tax shall be levied or collected except by authority of law. Acquiescence cannot take away from a party…

NARESH J. KOTAK,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(4), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 4635/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Nov 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Ramlal Negiआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 4635-4637 & 4641/Mum/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: (2006-2007 To 2009-10) Shri Naresh J. Kotak, D.C.I.T., C/O. Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp, Vs. Central Circle-6(4), Esplanade House, 2Nd Floor, 29, (Formerly A.C.I.T., Hazarimal Somani Marg, Fort, Central Circle 39) Mumbai-400001. Mumbai.

For Respondent: Lakshmi Vara Prasad Gode
Section 143(3)Section 153A

…General Reinsurance Co. Ltd. [1971] 81 ITR 303 (Delhi), CIT v. Archana R. Dhanwatey [1982] 136 ITR 355(Bom.). 32. If particular levy is not permitted under the Act, tax cannot be levied applying the doctrine of estoppel. (See Dy. CST v. Sreeni Printers [1987] 67 SCC 279. 33. This Court in the case of Nirmala L. Mehta v. A. Balasubramaniam, CIT [2004] 269 ITR 1 has held that there cannot be any estoppel against the statute. Article 265 of the Constitution of India in unmistakable terms provides that no tax shall be levied or collected except by authority of law. Acquiescence cannot take away from a party the relie…

SRI SRINIVASA EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue and all the cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 709/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan, Vice Presidnet & Shri B.R Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri Prashanth G.S, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Pramod Kumar Singh, CIT (DR)
Section 11Section 11(2)(b)Section 11(5)Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)Section 132(4)

…neral Reinsurance Co. Ltd. [1971] 81 ITR 303 (Delhi), CIT v. Archana R. Dhanwatey [1982] 136 ITR 355 (Bom.). 32. If particular levy is not permitted under the Act, tax cannot be levied applying the doctrine of estoppel. (See Dy. CST v. Sreeni Printers [1987] 67 SCC 279. ITA Nos.709 to 712 /Bang/2018 ITA Nos.1142 to 1148 /Bang/2018 CO Nos.88 to 89 /Bang/2018 Page 68 of 73 33. This Court in the case of Nirmala L. Mehta v. A. Balasubramaniam, CIT [2004] 269 ITR 1 has held that there cannot be any estoppel against the statute. Article 265 of the Constitution of India in unmistakable terms provides that no tax shal…

ITO, W-4, PANCHKULA vs. SMT. SEEMA BISHNOI, PANCHKULA

In the result appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 103/CHANDI/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Feb 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sanjay Gargthe Ito Vs. Smt. Seema Bishnoi Ward-4, Panchkula H.No. 906, Sec-08, Panchkula

For Appellant: Shri. A.K. Jindal, CAFor Respondent: Shri. G.S. Phani Kishore, CI TDR
Section 148Section 54BSection 54F

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH’B’, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI N.K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER The ITO Vs. Smt. Seema Bishnoi Ward-4, Panchkula H.No. 906, Sec-08, Panchkula PAN No. ARUPB5117G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri. A.K. Jindal, CA Department by : Shri. G.S. Phani Kishore, CI TDR Date of hearing : 05/02/2019 Date of Pronouncement : 20/02/2019 O R D E R PER N.K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT : This is an appeal by the Department against the order dt. 22/11/2017 of Ld. CIT(A)-, Panchkula 2. Following grounds have been raised in the present app…

THE ACIT-3(1), INDORE vs. M/S. MADHYA PRADESH AUDYOGIK KENDRA VIKAS NIGAM (I) LTD., INDORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee company –

ITA 534/IND/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Mar 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradआ.अ.सं /.I.T.A. No. 347 To 351/Ind/2013, 760 & 761/Ind/2014 "नधा"रण वष" // A.Ys.: 2003-04, 2004-05, 2006-07 To 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 Madhya Pradesh Audyogik Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Kendra Vikas Nigam Income-Tax, (Indore) Limited, 3(1), Indore. Indore. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent "था.ले.सं./Pan: Aadcm7525Q

For Respondent: Shri Manoj Munshi

…971) 81 ITR 303 (Del), CIT vs. Archana R. Dhanwatey (1981) 24 CTR (Bom) 142 : (1982) 136 ITR 355 (Bom)]. 32. If particular levy is not permitted under the Act, tax cannot be levied applying the doctrine of estoppel [see Dy. CST vs. Sreeni Printers (1987) 67 SCC 279]. 33. This Court in the case of Nirmala L. Mehta vs. A. Balasubramaniam, CIT (2004) 191 CTR (Bom) 8 : (2004) 269 ITR 1 (Bom) has held that there cannot be any estoppel against the statute. Article 265 of the Constitution of India in unmistakable terms provides that no tax shall be levied or collected except by -: 19 :- MPAKVN AND SEZ (Indore )…

THE ACIT-3(1), INDORE vs. M/S. MADHYA PRADESH AUDYOGIK KENDRA VIKAS NIGAM (I) LTD., INDORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee company –

ITA 533/IND/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Mar 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradआ.अ.सं /.I.T.A. No. 347 To 351/Ind/2013, 760 & 761/Ind/2014 "नधा"रण वष" // A.Ys.: 2003-04, 2004-05, 2006-07 To 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 Madhya Pradesh Audyogik Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Kendra Vikas Nigam Income-Tax, (Indore) Limited, 3(1), Indore. Indore. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent "था.ले.सं./Pan: Aadcm7525Q

For Respondent: Shri Manoj Munshi

…971) 81 ITR 303 (Del), CIT vs. Archana R. Dhanwatey (1981) 24 CTR (Bom) 142 : (1982) 136 ITR 355 (Bom)]. 32. If particular levy is not permitted under the Act, tax cannot be levied applying the doctrine of estoppel [see Dy. CST vs. Sreeni Printers (1987) 67 SCC 279]. 33. This Court in the case of Nirmala L. Mehta vs. A. Balasubramaniam, CIT (2004) 191 CTR (Bom) 8 : (2004) 269 ITR 1 (Bom) has held that there cannot be any estoppel against the statute. Article 265 of the Constitution of India in unmistakable terms provides that no tax shall be levied or collected except by -: 19 :- MPAKVN AND SEZ (Indore )…

Showing 1–20 of 37 · Page 1 of 2