Nirmala L. Mehta v. A. Balasubramaniam, CIT

269 ITR 1High Court2004#996 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 366,470 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

Shri Ritum Jain, Kolkata vs. DCIT, CC-3(2), Kolkata

In the result, the captioned appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 466/KOL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Ritum Jain Dcit, Cc-3(2), Kolkata 4A, Metro Towers, 1, Ho Chi Vs. Minh Sarani, Kolkata – 700 071. Pan: Actpj 4441 K (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri A.K. Tulsyan, Ar Respondent By : Smt. Ranu Biswas, Acit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 09.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.03.2022 O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 30.09.2021 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-21, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’]. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Ld. Ao In Rejecting The Assessee’S Rectification Petition Filed U/S 154 Claiming The Subsidy Received By The Assessee As Industrial Promotion Assistance (Ipa) From The State Govt, Under West Bengal Industrial Promotion (Assistance To Industrial Units) Scheme, As Capital Receipt In Place Of Revenue Receipt. The Claim Of The Assessee Was Rejected By The Ld. Ao As Well As The Ld. Cit(A) On The Ground That The Same Cannot Be Claimed By The Assessee In The Rectification Petition U/S 154 Since The Same Was Not Claimed In The Return Of Income Filed By The Assessee In View Of The Decision Of Hon’Ble Apex Court In Case Of Goetze India Ltd. Vs Cit In 157 Taxman 1. The Ld. Cit(A) Did Not Consider The Fact That The Assessee’S Case Is Squarely Covered By Judicial Decisions On Similar Facts In The Case Of Sharda Cropchem Ltd. Vs Dcit In 71 Itr (Trib) 141 & Dcit & Kashmir Steel Rolling Mills In 130/Asr/2014. Therefore, The Action Of 2 Shri Ritum Jain A.Y. 2014-15 The Ld. Cit(A) In Rejecting The Claim Of The Assessee Is Unjustified & The Claim Needs To Be Allowed.

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tulsyan, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Ranu Biswas, ACIT, DR
Section 139(5)Section 153ASection 154Section 250

…ception 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. 21. The Bombay High Court in Nirmala L. Mehta v. A. Balasubramaniam, C.I.T. (2004) 269 ITR 1 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. 22. Circ…

M/S Minera Steel & Power Pvt Ltd, Bellary vs. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Bellary Range, Bellary

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

ITA 515/BANG/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri H Siva Prasad Reddy, I.T.PFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT (DR)
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 41(1)Section 41(1)(a)

…ng the assessment year 1958-59, but it was assessable in the assessment year 1953- 54. It could not, therefore, be taxed in the assessment year 1958-59.” (ii) The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Nirmala L. Mehta vs. A. Balasubramaniam, C.I.T. (2004) 269 ITR 1 (Bom) 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.…

Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT (Ltu)-2, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5421/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Sept 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P.P.Bhatt & Shri Shamim Yahya

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh Vora-ARFor Respondent: Ms. R.M.Madhavi-CIT(DR)
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 154Section 154(7)Section 234D

…sessee and hence this deduction should have been allowed following the analogy of taxing the pre-operative interest income. For this proposition we rely on the CBDT Circular No 14(XL-35) of 1955 dt. 11-04-1955 and also below decisions: • Nirmala L Mehta v CIT 269 ITR 1 (Bom) • Balmukund Acharya v DCIT 310 ITR 310 (Bom) 30. In any case, the fact of non-claiming of pre-operative expenses of Rs. 3,308 crs was brought to the attention of the AO in the response dated 12-09-2018 to notice issued under section 154. (pi refer pg 156 to 161 of FPB @ pg 160-161) Ground of appeal no. 3(c) 31. Vide ground of appeal no 3(c),…

Sri. B. Rudragouda, Bellary vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1, Bellary

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 315/BANG/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Apr 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri Chythanya K.K., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 37Section 37(1)

…ring the assessment year 1958-59, but it was assessable in the assessment year 1953-54. It could not, therefore, be taxed in the assessment year 1958-59.” (ii) The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Nirmala L. Mehta vs. A. Balasubramaniam, C.I.T. (2004) 269 ITR 1 (Bom) 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. (i…

Sri. B. Rudragouda, Bellary vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1, Bellary

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 314/BANG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Apr 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri Chythanya K.K., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 37Section 37(1)

…ring the assessment year 1958-59, but it was assessable in the assessment year 1953-54. It could not, therefore, be taxed in the assessment year 1958-59.” (ii) The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Nirmala L. Mehta vs. A. Balasubramaniam, C.I.T. (2004) 269 ITR 1 (Bom) 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. (i…

M/S. Monarch Plaza Comforts Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)(2), Bengaluru

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 1644/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Mar 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiita No.1644 & 1645/Bang/2018 Assessment Year : 2011-12 & 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri S Ramsubramanyan, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. R Premi, JCIT (DR)
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 40

…the method of computation of income by adhering to either of recognised accounting standards. We refer to and rely upon to the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of in case of Nirmala L. Mehta vs. A. Balasubramaniam, CIT & Ors., reported in (2004) 269 ITR 1 held that, merely because the assessee has offered the income, that would not take away the right to contend that amount was not chargeable to tax. Hon’ble Court, referring the Page 9 of 11 ITA No.1644 & 1645/Bang/2018 Article 265 of the Constitution of India, that reads as under: Article 265 of the constitution of India reads as under:- “No tax…

M/S Vvd Constructions Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, ITA No.3384/Bang/2018 is allowed, while ITA Nos

ITA 3388/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H. Guruswamy, ITPFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 36(1)(iii)

…e assessment year 1958-59, but it was assessable in the assessment year 1953-54. It could not, therefore, be taxed in the assessment year 1958-59.” 9. Further, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Nirmala L. Mehta vs. A. Balasubramaniam, C.I.T. (2004) 269 ITR 1 (Bom) held that there cannot be any estoppel against the statute. Article 265 of the ITA Nos. 3384 to 3388/Bang/2018 Page 6 of 57 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 lev…

M/S Vvd Constructions Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, ITA No.3384/Bang/2018 is allowed, while ITA Nos

ITA 3387/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H. Guruswamy, ITPFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 36(1)(iii)

…e assessment year 1958-59, but it was assessable in the assessment year 1953-54. It could not, therefore, be taxed in the assessment year 1958-59.” 9. Further, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Nirmala L. Mehta vs. A. Balasubramaniam, C.I.T. (2004) 269 ITR 1 (Bom) held that there cannot be any estoppel against the statute. Article 265 of the ITA Nos. 3384 to 3388/Bang/2018 Page 6 of 57 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 lev…

M/S Vvd Constructions Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, ITA No.3384/Bang/2018 is allowed, while ITA Nos

ITA 3386/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H. Guruswamy, ITPFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 36(1)(iii)

…e assessment year 1958-59, but it was assessable in the assessment year 1953-54. It could not, therefore, be taxed in the assessment year 1958-59.” 9. Further, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Nirmala L. Mehta vs. A. Balasubramaniam, C.I.T. (2004) 269 ITR 1 (Bom) held that there cannot be any estoppel against the statute. Article 265 of the ITA Nos. 3384 to 3388/Bang/2018 Page 6 of 57 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 lev…

M/S Vvd Constructions Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, ITA No.3384/Bang/2018 is allowed, while ITA Nos

ITA 3385/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H. Guruswamy, ITPFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 36(1)(iii)

…e assessment year 1958-59, but it was assessable in the assessment year 1953-54. It could not, therefore, be taxed in the assessment year 1958-59.” 9. Further, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Nirmala L. Mehta vs. A. Balasubramaniam, C.I.T. (2004) 269 ITR 1 (Bom) held that there cannot be any estoppel against the statute. Article 265 of the ITA Nos. 3384 to 3388/Bang/2018 Page 6 of 57 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 lev…

M/S Vvd Constructions Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, ITA No.3384/Bang/2018 is allowed, while ITA Nos

ITA 3384/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H. Guruswamy, ITPFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 36(1)(iii)

…e assessment year 1958-59, but it was assessable in the assessment year 1953-54. It could not, therefore, be taxed in the assessment year 1958-59.” 9. Further, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Nirmala L. Mehta vs. A. Balasubramaniam, C.I.T. (2004) 269 ITR 1 (Bom) held that there cannot be any estoppel against the statute. Article 265 of the ITA Nos. 3384 to 3388/Bang/2018 Page 6 of 57 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 lev…

The Pr Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. M/S Karnataka State Co Operative

In the result, we do not find any merit in this

ITA/466/2016HC Karnataka03 Mar 2021

Bench: Cit(A) Is Entertain Able Even When The Same Is Not Claimed In Original Return Of Income Nor The Assessee

Section 10Section 138(5)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 23CSection 260Section 260ASection 80P

…bmissions, reliance has been placed on decisions in 'GOETZE (INIDA) LTD. VS. CIT', (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC), 'SANCHIT SOFTWARE AND SOLUTIONS P. LTD. VS. CIT', (2021) 349 ITR 404 (BOM.), 'NIRMALA L. MEHTA VS. A.BALASUBRAMANIAM, CIT AND OTHERS', (2004) 269 ITR 1 (BOM.), 'CIT VS. PRUTHV BROKERS AND SHAREHOLDES LTD.', (2012) 349 ITR 336 (BOMBAY), 'CIT VS. JAI PARABOLIC SPRINGS LTD.', (2008) 306 ITR 42 (DEL), 'CIT VS. JINDAL SAW PIPES LTD.', (2010) 328 ITR 338 (DEL.), 'CIT VS. SAM GLOBAL SECURITIES LTD.', (2014) 360 ITR 682 (DEL.), 'NATIONAL THERMAL POWER CO. 10 LTD. VS. CIT', (1998) 229 IT…

M/S. Dabur India Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl.CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6525/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Feb 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anupam Kant Garg, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80GSection 80ISection 92CSection 92E

…661 (SC); v) CIT vs VMRP Firm: 56 ITR 67 (SC); vi) Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala: 91, ITR 18 (SC); vii) Pt. Sheo Nath Prasad Sharma v. CIT : 66 ITR 647 (All.); viii) Abdul Qayume vs CIT: I 84 ITR 404 (All); ix) Nirmala L Mehta vs CIT: 269 ITR 1 (Bom); x) CIT vs Berger Paints: 254 ITR 503 (Cal); xi) R. B. Jessa Ram Fateh Chand vs CIT: 81 ITR 409 (All); xii) CIT vs Enron Expat Services Inc : 327 ITR 626 (Uttkhd); xiii) Smt. Snehlata Jain v. CIT: 192 CTR 50 (J&K); xiv) S.R. Koshti v. CIT: 276 ITR 165 (Guj.); xv) DCIT v. Sanmukhdas Wadhwani: 85 ITD 734 (Nag); xvi) Indo Java & Co. v. IAC: 30 I…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Dabur India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6256/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Feb 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anupam Kant Garg, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80GSection 80ISection 92CSection 92E

…661 (SC); v) CIT vs VMRP Firm: 56 ITR 67 (SC); vi) Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala: 91, ITR 18 (SC); vii) Pt. Sheo Nath Prasad Sharma v. CIT : 66 ITR 647 (All.); viii) Abdul Qayume vs CIT: I 84 ITR 404 (All); ix) Nirmala L Mehta vs CIT: 269 ITR 1 (Bom); x) CIT vs Berger Paints: 254 ITR 503 (Cal); xi) R. B. Jessa Ram Fateh Chand vs CIT: 81 ITR 409 (All); xii) CIT vs Enron Expat Services Inc : 327 ITR 626 (Uttkhd); xiii) Smt. Snehlata Jain v. CIT: 192 CTR 50 (J&K); xiv) S.R. Koshti v. CIT: 276 ITR 165 (Guj.); xv) DCIT v. Sanmukhdas Wadhwani: 85 ITD 734 (Nag); xvi) Indo Java & Co. v. IAC: 30 I…

M/S. Dabur India Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl.CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3241/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Feb 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anupam Kant Garg, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80GSection 80ISection 92CSection 92E

…661 (SC); v) CIT vs VMRP Firm: 56 ITR 67 (SC); vi) Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala: 91, ITR 18 (SC); vii) Pt. Sheo Nath Prasad Sharma v. CIT : 66 ITR 647 (All.); viii) Abdul Qayume vs CIT: I 84 ITR 404 (All); ix) Nirmala L Mehta vs CIT: 269 ITR 1 (Bom); x) CIT vs Berger Paints: 254 ITR 503 (Cal); xi) R. B. Jessa Ram Fateh Chand vs CIT: 81 ITR 409 (All); xii) CIT vs Enron Expat Services Inc : 327 ITR 626 (Uttkhd); xiii) Smt. Snehlata Jain v. CIT: 192 CTR 50 (J&K); xiv) S.R. Koshti v. CIT: 276 ITR 165 (Guj.); xv) DCIT v. Sanmukhdas Wadhwani: 85 ITD 734 (Nag); xvi) Indo Java & Co. v. IAC: 30 I…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Dabur India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3114/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Feb 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anupam Kant Garg, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80GSection 80ISection 92CSection 92E

…661 (SC); v) CIT vs VMRP Firm: 56 ITR 67 (SC); vi) Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala: 91, ITR 18 (SC); vii) Pt. Sheo Nath Prasad Sharma v. CIT : 66 ITR 647 (All.); viii) Abdul Qayume vs CIT: I 84 ITR 404 (All); ix) Nirmala L Mehta vs CIT: 269 ITR 1 (Bom); x) CIT vs Berger Paints: 254 ITR 503 (Cal); xi) R. B. Jessa Ram Fateh Chand vs CIT: 81 ITR 409 (All); xii) CIT vs Enron Expat Services Inc : 327 ITR 626 (Uttkhd); xiii) Smt. Snehlata Jain v. CIT: 192 CTR 50 (J&K); xiv) S.R. Koshti v. CIT: 276 ITR 165 (Guj.); xv) DCIT v. Sanmukhdas Wadhwani: 85 ITD 734 (Nag); xvi) Indo Java & Co. v. IAC: 30 I…

Jinesh (HUF) vs. The Income Tax Officer

In the result, we do not find any merit in this appeal, the same fails

ITA/168/2012HC Karnataka22 Jan 2021

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

Section 143(3)Section 260Section 260ASection 68

…1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY 2021 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NATARAJ RANGASWAMY I.T.A. NO.168 OF 2012 BETWEEN: JINESH (HUF) REPRESENTED BY ITS KARTHA SRI. JINESH NO.15, 80 FEET ROAD WILSON GARDEN HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LAYOUT KOTHANUR MAIN ROAD JP NAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 078. ... APPELLANT (BY SRI. V. CHANDRASEKHAR, ADV., A/W SRI. BHAIRAV KUTTAIAH, ADV.,) AND: THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4(3) UNITY BUILDING, MISSION ROAD BANGALORE - 560 027. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI. E.I. SANMATHI…

D.Koti Reddy, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-6(3)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2029/BANG/2018[213-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Jan 2021

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri V. Sridhar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Kannan Narayan, D.R
Section 133ASection 148

…of Shri D. Koti Reddy, Bangalore Page 13 of 14 Commissioner (Appeals) without restricting income to returned income, i.e., the assessing Officer can compute income lower than that returned income. In the case of Nirmala L. Mehta v. A. Balasubramanian (2004) 269 ITR 1 (Bom.)(HC), the Hon’ble Bombay High court 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 c…

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)

…offered the same in its return of income or even having accepted the same as taxable before the authorities or even in the books of accounts. For this proposition he relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Nirmala Mehta v. CIT [269 ITR 1] and others. Therefore, it is submitted that there was no bar against the Assessee in claiming that the income erroneously offered in the return of income could not be withdrawn or revoked. 50. Ld. Counsel for the assessee further argued that only the profit element embedded in the on-money could be taxed in the relevant assessment year, since the…

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)

…offered the same in its return of income or even having accepted the same as taxable before the authorities or even in the books of accounts. For this proposition he relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Nirmala Mehta v. CIT [269 ITR 1] and others. Therefore, it is submitted that there was no bar against the Assessee in claiming that the income erroneously offered in the return of income could not be withdrawn or revoked. 50. Ld. Counsel for the assessee further argued that only the profit element embedded in the on-money could be taxed in the relevant assessment year, since the…