Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT

156 ITR 569High Court1984#8216 most cited

What is Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

Revenue authorities are not estopped from correcting a mistaken view of statutory provisions in income tax assessments, even if they previously took that incorrect view.

13

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2023.

Also referred to as

CWT vs. Meattles (P) Ltd · 156 ITR 569 · revenue authorities · mistaken view · estoppel · statutory provision · income tax assessment

Judgments citing Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT

M.B. Petroleum Services Llc, New Delhi vs. DCIT (International Taxation), Dehradun

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6608/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun05 Oct 2023AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Smt. Shashi M Kapila, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Mayank Kumar, Addl.CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 271GSection 40aSection 44BSection 44D

…View which the assessee might take of his rights nor can the existence or absence of entries in the books of account be decisive or conclusive in the matter." 23. Further, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court also in the case of CWT Vs. Meattles (P) Ltd reported in 156 ITR 569 had held “whether the revenue authorities take a particular view of the statutory provision in the income tax assessment and later on realise that it was mistaken view, then they cannot be estopped from taking correct view of the statutory provision later on.” Further, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Director of Inspection of Income Tax Vs.…

Mb Petroleum Services Llc, Mumbai vs. DDIT, Dehradun

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

ITA 1828/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun15 Sept 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshmb Petroleum Services Llc, Vs. Ddit, Kirtane & Pandit, H-16, Circle-1, Saraswati Colony, Sitaldevi International Taxation, Temple Road, Mahim, Dehradun Mumbai (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaecm2604H

For Appellant: Smt Shashi M. Kapila, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Mayank Kumar, JCIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 32Section 44B

…e View which the assessee might take of his rights nor can the existence or absence of entries in the books of account be decisive or conclusive in the matter." 23. Further, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court also in the case of CWT Vs. Meattles (P) Ltd reported in 156 ITR 569 had held “whether the revenue authorities take a particular view of the statutory provision in the income tax assessment and later on realise that it was mistaken view, then they cannot be estopped from taking correct view of the statutory provision later on.” Further, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Director of Inspection of Income Tax Vs.…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(2), Hyderabad vs. Blend Colours Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 1185/HYD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Jul 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2015-16 Blend Colours Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Hyderabad. Income-Tax, Circle – 1(2), Pan – Aaccb 2492 A Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dy. Commissioner Of Vs Blend Colours Pvt. Ltd., Income-Tax, Hyderabad. Circle – 1(2), Hyderabad. Pan – Aaccb 2492 A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sidharth Toshnival Revenue By: Shri A. Sitarama Rao Date Of Hearing: 05/07/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 22/07/2021

For Appellant: Shri Sidharth ToshnivalFor Respondent: Shri A. Sitarama Rao
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)

…was held that there cannot be estoppel against the law. Similar view was held in the cases of Luchi Ram Puranmal [177 CTR 640 (MP)]; Foss Electric 263 ITR 125] and Distributors of Baroda [118 ITR 243]. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CWT v. Meattles (P.) Ltd. 156 ITR 569 has held that the revenue authorities cannot be stopped from taking a view of statutory provisions in the later year. Contention of the appellant is therefore not acceptable 5.1 We have carefully heard the rival contentions and perused relevant material on record including judicial pronouncements as cited before us. The prime contention of the…

Blend Colours Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 1137/HYD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Jul 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2015-16 Blend Colours Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Hyderabad. Income-Tax, Circle – 1(2), Pan – Aaccb 2492 A Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dy. Commissioner Of Vs Blend Colours Pvt. Ltd., Income-Tax, Hyderabad. Circle – 1(2), Hyderabad. Pan – Aaccb 2492 A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sidharth Toshnival Revenue By: Shri A. Sitarama Rao Date Of Hearing: 05/07/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 22/07/2021

For Appellant: Shri Sidharth ToshnivalFor Respondent: Shri A. Sitarama Rao
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)

…was held that there cannot be estoppel against the law. Similar view was held in the cases of Luchi Ram Puranmal [177 CTR 640 (MP)]; Foss Electric 263 ITR 125] and Distributors of Baroda [118 ITR 243]. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CWT v. Meattles (P.) Ltd. 156 ITR 569 has held that the revenue authorities cannot be stopped from taking a view of statutory provisions in the later year. Contention of the appellant is therefore not acceptable 5.1 We have carefully heard the rival contentions and perused relevant material on record including judicial pronouncements as cited before us. The prime contention of the…

St- Ericsson India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6247/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2019AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri S.D. Kapila, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Sarabjeet Singh, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92CSection 92D

…g various decisions, submitted that it is the settled law that there is no estoppel against the statute. For the above proposition, he relied on the following decisions:- i) Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. vs. CIT, 82 ITR 363 (SC); ii) CWT vs. Meattles (P) Ltd., 156 ITR 569; iii) CIT vs. Mrs. V. Chandra, 245 ITR 619; iv) Director of Inspection of Income-tax (Inv.) vs. Pooran Mall & Sons, 96 ITR 390 v) PV Doshi vs. CIT, 113 ITR 22 (Guj) vi) CIT vs. Continental Commercial Corp., 110 ITR 170 (Mad) vii) Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd vs. State of Kerala, 91 ITR 18 viii) CIT VS. Mahalaxmi Textile Mills, 66 ITR 710 (SC…

Dabur Invest Corp, New Delhi vs. Prcit-16, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1764/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[A.Y 2013-14] & [A.Y 2014-15]

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Srivastava, Sr Adv
Section 263

…if a clearly incorrect view was taken in earlier years, it can't be argued in the subsequent year that the same incorrect approach should be repeated, as held in the case of CIT Vs V.MR.P. Firm (1965) 56 ITR 67 (SC) and also in CWT vs Meattles (P) Ltd (1984) 156 ITR 569 (Del). 38. The ld. DR concluded by stating as under: “Apparent is not real : - • As per clause 11.4 of JV Agreement, CEO of the company "Aviva" will always be from CUIH and never from Dabur. • Assessee was asked to explain why they have up their right for ever and why day-to-day control of "Aviva" was given in hands of CUIH, despite holding ma…

Dabur Invest Corp, New Delhi vs. Prcit-16, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1763/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[A.Y 2013-14] & [A.Y 2014-15]

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Srivastava, Sr Adv
Section 263

…if a clearly incorrect view was taken in earlier years, it can't be argued in the subsequent year that the same incorrect approach should be repeated, as held in the case of CIT Vs V.MR.P. Firm (1965) 56 ITR 67 (SC) and also in CWT vs Meattles (P) Ltd (1984) 156 ITR 569 (Del). 38. The ld. DR concluded by stating as under: “Apparent is not real : - • As per clause 11.4 of JV Agreement, CEO of the company "Aviva" will always be from CUIH and never from Dabur. • Assessee was asked to explain why they have up their right for ever and why day-to-day control of "Aviva" was given in hands of CUIH, despite holding ma…

Rhythm and Hues Studios India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 11(1)(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1849/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2018AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Ajit Kumar Jian &For Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, D.R
Section 10ASection 10A(4)Section 143(3)Section 40Section 43B

…tion are not in parity with those for the preceding years, therefore, the aforesaid claim of the assessee cannot be accepted. Alternatively, we find that even otherwise as held by the Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CWT Vs. Meatles Pvt. Ltd. (1984) 156 ITR 569 (Del) the revenue authorities cannot be stopped from taking a correct view of the statutory provisions in a later year. On a similar footing, the ITAT, Mumbai in the case of Onward Technologies Limited Vs. DCIT (2014) 147 ITD 534 (Mum), had observed, that application of a wrong method for P a g e | 14 IT(TP) A. No.1849/Mum/2016 A.Y. 2011-12 Rhyth…

Apne Aap Women Worlwide (India) Trust, Kolkatta vs. ITO (E) 1(1), Mumbai

Appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 7373/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No.7373/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2012-13) Apne Aap Women Worldwide (India) Trust Income Tax Officer (Exemption)-1(1) बनाम/ 1, Sashitala Road, Kidderpore Mumbai-400 020 Vs. Kolkata-700 023 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Aaata-8473-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Revenue By : Rajesh Kumar Yadav,Ld.Dr : Shashi Tulsiyan, Ld. Ar Assessee By सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 09/07/2018 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 03/10/2018 Date Of Pronouncement

For Respondent: Rajesh Kumar Yadav,Ld.DR
Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)Section 143(3)

…was held that there cannot be estoppel against the law. Similar view was held in the cases of Luchi Ram Puranmal [177 CTR 640 (MP)]; Foss Electric 263 ITR 125] and Distributors of Baroda [118 ITR 243]. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CWT vs. Meattles (p) Ltd. 156 ITR 569 has held that the revenue authorities cannot be stopped from taking a view of statutory provisions in the later year. Contention of the appellant is therefore not acceptable ii. Regarding violation of provisions of section 13, the appellant submitted that the payment made to Ms. Ruchira Gupta was not commensurate with the service rendered by her…

The Fine Arts Society, Mumbai vs. ITO (E) 2(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 189/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri G Manjunatha, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 2171/Mum/2016 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, DR
Section 11Section 12Section 143(3)Section 2(15)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “F” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI श्री महावीर स िंह, न्याययक दस्य एविं श्री जी. मंजुनाथ लेखा दस्य के मक्ष । BEFORE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND SRI G MANJUNATHA, AM Aayakr ApIla saM./ ITA No. 2171/Mum/2016 (inaQa-arNa baYa- / Assessment Year 2011-12) Aayakr ApIla saM./ ITA No. 189/Mum/2017 (inaQa-arNa baYa- / Assessment Year 2012-13) The Fine Arts Society Dy. Director of Income Tax Fine Arts Chowk, (Exemption)-1(2), Piramal Vs. R.C. Marg, Chembur Chambers, Lalbaug, Parel Mumbai – 400 071 Mumbai-400 012 (ApIlaaqaI- / Appellant) .. (p`%yaqaaI- / Res…

The Fine Arts Society, Mumbai vs. Dy Director of Income Tax (Exemptions) - 1(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 2171/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri G Manjunatha, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 2171/Mum/2016 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, DR
Section 11Section 12Section 143(3)Section 2(15)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “F” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI श्री महावीर स िंह, न्याययक दस्य एविं श्री जी. मंजुनाथ लेखा दस्य के मक्ष । BEFORE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND SRI G MANJUNATHA, AM Aayakr ApIla saM./ ITA No. 2171/Mum/2016 (inaQa-arNa baYa- / Assessment Year 2011-12) Aayakr ApIla saM./ ITA No. 189/Mum/2017 (inaQa-arNa baYa- / Assessment Year 2012-13) The Fine Arts Society Dy. Director of Income Tax Fine Arts Chowk, (Exemption)-1(2), Piramal Vs. R.C. Marg, Chembur Chambers, Lalbaug, Parel Mumbai – 400 071 Mumbai-400 012 (ApIlaaqaI- / Appellant) .. (p`%yaqaaI- / Res…

M/S. Vaildor Capital India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Gurgaon

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

ITA 1979/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Dec 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: : Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. S.D. Kapila, Advocate &For Respondent: Sh. T.M. Shivakumar, CIT/DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 92C

…nal profile be included. 1. CG – VAK 2. Microgenetics Systems Ltd.” In support of admission of additional ground, the appellant relied upon the following case laws : (i). Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. vs. CIT, 82 ITR 363 (SC) (ii). CWT vs. Mettles (P) Ltd.. 156 ITR 569 (Del.) (iii). CIT vs. Mrs. V. Chandra, 245 ITR 610 (Del.) (iv). DIT(Inv.) vs. Pooran Mall & Sons, 96 ITR 390 (SC) (v). PV Doshi vs. CIT, 113 ITR 22 (Guj) (vi). CIT vs. Continental Commercial Corp. , 110 ITR 170 (Mad) (vii). Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala, 91 ITR 18 (SC) (viii). CIT vs. Mahalaxmi Textile Mills, 66 ITR 710 (…

Saic India Pvt. Ltd., Noida vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 6464/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri N.K. Saini

For Appellant: S/Shri S.D. Kapila, R.R. MauryaFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Jain, CIT DR
Section 40Section 92C

…ic domain at that time; that the assessee cannot be estopped to seek exclusion of the comparables from the final list of comparables and relied upon the judgment cited as (i) Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. vs. CIT – 82 ITR 363; (ii) CWT vs. Meattles (P_ Ltd. – 156 ITR 569; (iii) CIT vs. Mrs. V. Chandra – 245 ITR 610; (iv) Director of 10 ITA No.6464/Del./2012 Inspection of Income-tax (Inv.) vs. Pooran Mall & Sons – 96 ITR 390; (v) PV Doshi vs. CIT – 113 ITR 22 (Guj.). 13. However, on the other hand, ld. DR opposed the application on the grounds inter alia that the assessee cannot be allowed to para-drop favourable…