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.

How many judgments cite Nirmala L. Mehta v. A. Balasubramaniam, CIT?

108 judgments on BharatTax cite Nirmala L. Mehta v. A. Balasubramaniam, CIT (269 ITR 1), spanning 2015 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Nirmala L. Mehta v. A. Balasubramaniam, CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 132(4), Section 147, Section 153C, Section 2(47)(v), Section 2(47)(vi).

Nirmala L. Mehta v. A. Balasubramaniam, CIT (269 ITR 1)

Om Prakash Bishu, Kuchaman City vs. DCIT, Jodhpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 107/JODH/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur18 Aug 2023AY 2019-20

Section 115BSection 133ASection 142ASection 142A(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 69B

…g denied to them merely on technical grounds. The State authorities cannot adopt the attitude which private litigants might adopt". (Emphasis supplied). (vii).The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Nirmala L. Mehta vs. A. Balasubramaniam, C.I.T. (2004) 269 ITR 1 (Bom.) has held that "There cannot be any estoppels 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 l…

Madanlal Mohanlal Sakhala, Mumbai vs. Addl. Comm of Income Tax Circle-24(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 308/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Iswar RathiFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. AR)

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) wherein 5 A.Y. 2010-11 Madanlal Mohanlal Sakhala 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 tax. It would be gainful to reproduce the observation the Hon’ble High Court where…

Shri Kenche Kumar, Hospet vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 2(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 46/BANG/2023[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jun 2023AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2010-11 Shri Kenche Kumar, The Assistant Door No. 847, 21St Ward, Commissioner Of Bellary Road, Income Tax, Opp. Lucky Tyres, Hospet, Vs. Central Circle – Bellary – 583 201. 2(1), Pan: Avspk7166L Bangalore. Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 37(1)

…ce reliance on the following judicial precedents where it has been held that mere consent cannot confer jurisdiction. a. CIT Vs MRP Firm 56 ITR 67 (SC) b. Pullongode Rubber Vs State of Kerala 91 ITR 18 c. S.R Kosti Vs CIT 276 ITR 165 d. Nirmala L Mehta Vs CIT 269 ITR 1 e. Bhandari Metal & alloys Vs State of Karnataka 136 STC 292 The Appellant further submits that the learned Assessing Officer without appreciating the details as furnished during the course of assessment proceeding and further without appreciating the nature of the business of the Appellant has completely erred in law in disallowing the said sum of…

Gayatri Commercial Premises Co-Op Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. CPC/ITO.22(1)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 114/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.114/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2019-20) Gayatri Commercial Premises बिधम/ Cpc/Ito, 22 (1)(4) Co-Op, Society Ltd. 3Rd Floor, Piramal Chambers Vs. Unit No. 102/103, Behind Lalbaugh Mumbai- 400034 Mittal Ind. Estate Andheri Kurla Andheri (East) Mumbai- 400059 स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaag5064D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri. N.R. Agarwal Revenue By: Shri. Krishna Kumar, (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 15/03/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/05/2023 आदेश/Order Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac Dated 13-12-2022 For Ay 2019-20 Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 93,20,286/-. 2. The Assessee Society Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal Reads As Under: - “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.93,20,286/- As A Business Income In Order Passed U/S 143(1) & 154 Of The Act By Cpc. 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Not Granting Deduction Under Mutuality Principal.” 3. The Regarding Ground No. 1, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Ground Of Appeal Of The Assessee By Observing As Under: - “The Ld. Cit(A) Has Rejected The Assessees’S The Ground Of Appeal By Observing At Para No. 7 Of The Impugned Order As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri. N.R. AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri. Krishna Kumar, (Sr. AR)

Section 143(1)

…that there cannot be estoppel against law; and as per the Article 265 of Constitution of India, “No tax shall be levied or collected except by authority of law” and drew our attention to the following case laws:- a).Nirmala L. Mehta v/s A. Balsubramaniam CIT 269 ITR 1 (Bom) 4 A.Y. 2019-20 Gayatri Commercial Premises Co-Op Society Ltd. b).CIT v/s Archana R Dhanwatey 136 ITR 355 (Bom) c). Wipro Ltd v/s DCIT 382 ITR 179 (Karn) d).Smt Snehlata Jain v/s CIT 192 CTR 50 (J&K) e). TATA INDUSTRIES LTD vs. ITO dated 20th July, 2016,181 TTJ 0600 (Mumbai) Hon'ble bench has held in para 30 of the order as under:- 6. Accor…

Young Women'S Christian Association of Delhi, New Delhi vs. ITO (Exemption), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1584/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Apr 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Saten Sethi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Takiyar, Sr. DR

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

…ubmitted that there is no estoppel against the statute and referred to the following decisions:- (i) CIT vs. Bharat General Reinsurance Co. Ltd. (1971) 81 ITR 303 (Del) (ii) SR Kosti vs. CIT (2005) 276 ITR 165 (Guj) (iii) Nirmla L Mehta vs. A. Balasubramaniam 269 ITR 1 (Bom) 6.4 Reference was also made to the decision of Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in Srikant G. Shah vs. ITO (2007) 108 ITD 577 (Mum). 6.5 In support of the assessee’s case reliance was placed on the following decisions also:- (i) Kalvindee Rail Nirman (Engineers) Ltd. vs. CIT & Another (2017) 394 ITR 684 (Raj); and (ii) Raghvan Nair vs. ACIT & a…