Nirmala L. Mehta v. A. Balasubramaniam, CIT

269 ITR 1High Court2004#1009 most cited

What is Nirmala L. Mehta v. A. Balasubramaniam, CIT authority for?

There can be no estoppel against the statute, meaning tax cannot be levied or collected without express authority of law. An appellate authority may adjudicate additional claims or legal contentions to ensure the correct tax liability is determined.

108

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

Also referred to as

Nirmala L. Mehta · 269 ITR 1 · Bombay High Court · no estoppel against statute · additional claim · CIT(A) power · appeal 143(1) intimation · Section 143(1) · Section 143(3) · Article 265 · authority of law

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 143(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 2(47)(v)annual letting valuejoint development agreementjdapercentage completion methodsection 52section 53aannual valueproject completion methodsection 53section 2(47)corporate guarantee

Judgments citing Nirmala L. Mehta v. A. Balasubramaniam, CIT

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)

…] 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 that he is entitled to where the tax is levied or collected without authority of law. In 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)

…] 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 that he is entitled to where the tax is levied or collected without authority of law. In 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)

…] 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 that he is entitled to where the tax is levied or collected without authority of law. In 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)

…] 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 that he is entitled to where the tax is levied or collected without authority of law. In 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)

…] 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 that he is entitled to where the tax is levied or collected without authority of law. In th…

AJAY JAISINGHANI ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 972/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI. NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA (Accountant Member), MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora, Shri Pranay GandhiFor Respondent: DR. K. R. Subhash (CIT-DR)
Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 250Section 55(2)(aa)Section 55(2)(ac)

…was held that the additional claim of the assessee should have been adjudicated by the ld. CIT(A). a. Jute Corpn. Of India Ltd. [(1991) 187 ITR 688 (SC)] b. Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. [(1993) 199 ITR 351 (Bombay HC Full Bench)] c. Nirmala L. Mehta [(2004) 269 ITR 1 (Bombay HC)] d. Smt. Archana R. Dhanwatey [(1982) 136 ITR 355 (Bombay HC)]. 8. The ld. DR on the other hand controverted the said fact and stated that when the assessee is not aggrieved by the 143(1) intimation, there remains no subject matter/dispute for further adjudication before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. DR further stated that the assessee can r…

SHRI SHESHAVTAR 1008 SHRI KALLAJI VEDPITH EVAM SHODH SANSTHAN,NIMBAHERA, CHITTORGARH vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD, UDAIPUR, AAYKAR BHAWAN, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 268/JODH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur01 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, CA &For Respondent: Shri Karni Dan, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR
Section 115BSection 12ASection 142Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 234BSection 234DSection 250

…except as per law. Circular No. 14(XI-35) of 1955 dt. 1-4-1955 cautions the officers of the Department from taking advantage of ignorance of an assessee as to his rights. The HonTale Bombay High Court in the Nirmala L. Mehta v. A. Balasubramaniam, CIT (2004) 269 ITR 1 (Bom) has held that there cannot be any estoppel against the statute. Article 265 of the Constitution of India clearly provides that no tax shall be levied or collected except by authority of law. Similar view has been taken recently by the Honble jurisdictional High Court in Sancheti Software & Solutions (P) Ltd. v. CIT (2012) 349 ITR 404 (Bom). I…

SHIVALIK PRINTS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, SPECIAL RANGE-8, NEW DELHI

In the result, assessees’ appeals in ITA nos

ITA 8136/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraassessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 80Section 80J

…lowing judicial precedents amongst others. 81 ITR 303 (DEL) CIT vs. Bharat General Insurance Company Ltd. ACIT v. Technofab Engg. Ltd., 2009 TIOL, 664 ITAT (Del.) Balmukund Acharya v. Dy.CIT 310 ITR 310(Bom.) Nirmala L. Mehta v. A. Balasubramaniam, CIT [2004] 269 ITR 1 (Bom.) [B] Powers of the CIT(A) are coterminous with that of the Assessing Officer and any admissible claim if not made before the AO can be made before the CIT(A) 2.2 It is submitted that the powers of the CIT(A) are co-terminus with that of the Assessing Officer. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jute Corporation of India Ltd Vs CIT (1990) 187…

M/S. SHIVALIK PRINTS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, assessees’ appeals in ITA nos

ITA 2296/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraassessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 80Section 80J

…lowing judicial precedents amongst others. 81 ITR 303 (DEL) CIT vs. Bharat General Insurance Company Ltd. ACIT v. Technofab Engg. Ltd., 2009 TIOL, 664 ITAT (Del.) Balmukund Acharya v. Dy.CIT 310 ITR 310(Bom.) Nirmala L. Mehta v. A. Balasubramaniam, CIT [2004] 269 ITR 1 (Bom.) [B] Powers of the CIT(A) are coterminous with that of the Assessing Officer and any admissible claim if not made before the AO can be made before the CIT(A) 2.2 It is submitted that the powers of the CIT(A) are co-terminus with that of the Assessing Officer. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jute Corporation of India Ltd Vs CIT (1990) 187…

ABDUL NAYAB SHAIKH,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 23(1)(1), MATURMANDIR, MUMBAI

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 4012/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Gagan Goyal

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 4Section 54Section 54F

…e unregistered firm to tax in respect of the very same income, Section 183 was also referred to in that connection.” 8. The Ld.AR respectfully relied on the order of the Hon'ble High Courtof Bombay in the case of Nirmala L Mehta vs A Balasubramanyam, CIT &Ors 269 ITR 1. The relevant paragraph is reproduced below:- “The problem arose because the petitioner in her return for the assessment year 1988-89 filed on June 30, 1988, offered the prize money of the lottery to tax rather a fundamental error of law on the part of the assessee, but that error of law once detected by the petitioner, it was urged before the Comm…

M/S MARS COIONIZER P LTD ,RAIPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL -II, RAIPUR

Appeal is allowed in terms mentioned above

ITA 113/IND/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore04 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Mars Colonizer Acit, Central-2, Private Limited, Bhopal C/O Hotel Amit Regency, बनाम/ Saibaba Complex, Vs. Moti Bag Chowk, Raipur (Appellant/Assessee) (Respondent/Revenue) Pan: Aafca 6847 B Assessee By Shri Hitesh Chimnani & Shri Yash Kukreja, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 08.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 04.04.2024

Section 132Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)

…able as per law and allow the same while computing the assessable income and the department should not take advantage of assessee’s ignorance to collect more tax. And cited the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Nirmala L. Mehta Vs. CIT (269 ITR 1) Page 11 of 21 M/s Mars Colonizers Private Limited, Raipur vs. ACIT, Central-2, Bhopal. ITA No. 113/Ind/2020 – AY 2013-14 wherein the Hon’ble High Court held that merely because income was inadvertently offered to tax, it no way take away the right of the assessee to contest the action of tax authority that the said income was not chargeable to…

THE UNITED THEOLOGICAL COLLEGE,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, (EXEMPTIONS), WARD-2, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 518/BANG/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Dec 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Joseph Vargese, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.S. Karthik, D.R
Section 11(5)Section 147Section 148Section 250

…ITA No.518/Bang/2023 The United Theological College, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2010-11 The United Theological College No.63, Miller’s Road ITO (Exemptions) Benson Town Ward-2 Vs. Bangalore 560 046 Bangalore PAN NO : AABFT6448G APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Joseph Vargese, A.R. Respondent by : Shri D.S. Karthik, D.R. Date of Hearing : 30.11.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 01.12.2023 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal by assesse…

TITAGARH CAPITAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES(P)LTD,KOLKATA vs. ITO, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 382/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Nov 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 14ASection 250

…onception or on not being properly instructed is over assessed, the authorities under the Act are required to assist him and ensure that only legitimate taxes due are collected. e) The Bombay High Court in Nirmala L. Mehta v. A. Balasubramaniam, CIT v. [2004] 269 ITR 1/139 Taxman 394 held that there cannot be any estoppel against the statute. Article 265 of the Constitution of India 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 that he is entitled to .here the tax is levied or collected without authority of la…

TRISHUL BUILDTECH INFRASTRUTURE (P) LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

ITA 1367/BANG/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Oct 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri A. Shankar, Senior CounselFor Respondent: Dr. G. Manoj Kumar, D.R
Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 292Section 69C

…1965] 56 ITR 67 (SC) ITA Nos.1362, 1363 & 1367/Bang/2013 Trishul Buildtech Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 18 of 57 iii) Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd v. State of Kerala (1973) 91 ITR 18 (SC) iv) Nirmala L. Mehta v. A. Balasubrimaniam CIT (2004) 269 ITR 1 (Bom.). 6. On the other hand, the ld. D.R. relied on the order of ld. CIT(A) and submitted that as far as provisions of section 170(1) of the Act, if there is succession in the business of assessee, the predecessor has to be assessed in respect of income of the previous year in which succession took place up to the date of succession. The admitted…

TRISHUL BUILDTECH INFRASTRUCTURE (P) LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

ITA 1363/BANG/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Oct 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri A. Shankar, Senior CounselFor Respondent: Dr. G. Manoj Kumar, D.R
Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 292Section 69C

…1965] 56 ITR 67 (SC) ITA Nos.1362, 1363 & 1367/Bang/2013 Trishul Buildtech Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 18 of 57 iii) Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd v. State of Kerala (1973) 91 ITR 18 (SC) iv) Nirmala L. Mehta v. A. Balasubrimaniam CIT (2004) 269 ITR 1 (Bom.). 6. On the other hand, the ld. D.R. relied on the order of ld. CIT(A) and submitted that as far as provisions of section 170(1) of the Act, if there is succession in the business of assessee, the predecessor has to be assessed in respect of income of the previous year in which succession took place up to the date of succession. The admitted…

TRISHUL BUILDTECH INFRASTRUCTURE (P) LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

ITA 1362/BANG/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Oct 2023AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri A. Shankar, Senior CounselFor Respondent: Dr. G. Manoj Kumar, D.R
Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 292Section 69C

…1965] 56 ITR 67 (SC) ITA Nos.1362, 1363 & 1367/Bang/2013 Trishul Buildtech Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 18 of 57 iii) Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd v. State of Kerala (1973) 91 ITR 18 (SC) iv) Nirmala L. Mehta v. A. Balasubrimaniam CIT (2004) 269 ITR 1 (Bom.). 6. On the other hand, the ld. D.R. relied on the order of ld. CIT(A) and submitted that as far as provisions of section 170(1) of the Act, if there is succession in the business of assessee, the predecessor has to be assessed in respect of income of the previous year in which succession took place up to the date of succession. The admitted…

DCIT- 3(4) , MUMBAI vs. M/S RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and both the appeals of the revenue are treated as partly allowed

ITA 2588/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

Section 14ASection 250(6)Section 32Section 35

…gal ground and it does not require examination of 21 Reliance Industries Ltd. AY 2017-18 & 2018-19 any new facts. It is further submitted, by placing reliance on the decision rendered by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Nirmala L Mehta vs. CIT (2004)(269 ITR 1) that merely because an assessee offered income for taxation, the same would not take away the right of the assessee to contend that the same would not be chargeable to tax. 10.2 We heard the parties on the above said plea of the assessee. Having regard to the submissions made by the assessee, we notice that this additional ground is purely a lega…

DCIT-3(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and both the appeals of the revenue are treated as partly allowed

ITA 2587/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

Section 14ASection 250(6)Section 32Section 35

…gal ground and it does not require examination of 21 Reliance Industries Ltd. AY 2017-18 & 2018-19 any new facts. It is further submitted, by placing reliance on the decision rendered by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Nirmala L Mehta vs. CIT (2004)(269 ITR 1) that merely because an assessee offered income for taxation, the same would not take away the right of the assessee to contend that the same would not be chargeable to tax. 10.2 We heard the parties on the above said plea of the assessee. Having regard to the submissions made by the assessee, we notice that this additional ground is purely a lega…

RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(4), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and both the appeals of the revenue are treated as partly allowed

ITA 2318/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

Section 14ASection 250(6)Section 32Section 35

…gal ground and it does not require examination of 21 Reliance Industries Ltd. AY 2017-18 & 2018-19 any new facts. It is further submitted, by placing reliance on the decision rendered by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Nirmala L Mehta vs. CIT (2004)(269 ITR 1) that merely because an assessee offered income for taxation, the same would not take away the right of the assessee to contend that the same would not be chargeable to tax. 10.2 We heard the parties on the above said plea of the assessee. Having regard to the submissions made by the assessee, we notice that this additional ground is purely a lega…

RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 3(4), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and both the appeals of the revenue are treated as partly allowed

ITA 2317/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

Section 14ASection 250(6)Section 32Section 35

…gal ground and it does not require examination of 21 Reliance Industries Ltd. AY 2017-18 & 2018-19 any new facts. It is further submitted, by placing reliance on the decision rendered by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Nirmala L Mehta vs. CIT (2004)(269 ITR 1) that merely because an assessee offered income for taxation, the same would not take away the right of the assessee to contend that the same would not be chargeable to tax. 10.2 We heard the parties on the above said plea of the assessee. Having regard to the submissions made by the assessee, we notice that this additional ground is purely a lega…

Showing 1–20 of 108 · Page 1 of 6