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

DCIT OSD 1(1), Mumbai vs. The Saraswat Co-Op Bank P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai

In the result all the six appeals i

ITA 8622/MUM/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 8622/Mum/2010 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) The Deputy Commissioner Of The Saraswat Co-Operative बनाम/ Income Tax(Osd),1(1) Bank Limited V. Room No. 540/564, 5 T H Floor Madhushree, Plot No. 85 Aayakar Bhawan, M K Road District Navi Mumbai- New Marine Lines 400 703 Mumbai-400020 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaact5543L (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

Section 14A

…er a mistake, misconception 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. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Nirmala L. Mehta v. CIT (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. Cir…

Superna R. Motwane, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 19(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 8864/MUM/2010[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Oct 2016AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.8864/Mum/2010 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2001-02) Mrs. Superna R. Motwane, Dy. Commissioner Of बनाम/ Gnyanghar, 14 Th Road, Income Tax, V. Khar (West), Circle – 19(1), Mumbai -400 052. 3 Rd Floor, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aabpk5356 G .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Kashyap,DR
Section 143(3)Section 80Section 80H

…r software export through internet. ITA 8864/Mum/2010 14 The money has come in the form of convertible foreign exchange. The auditors certificate was also given in form no 10CCAF. The assessee relied on the following decisions:- 1. Nirmala L. Mehta v. CIT 269 ITR 1 (Bombay HC) 2. Rachana S. Talreja v. DCIT 16 ITR (Trib) 53 (Mumbai) On being asked by the Bench, the assessee submitted that the assessee did not filed any Softex form with government authorities as mandated under law for exporting computer software. The assessee submitted that the assessee was assigned the job of designing website by Maaza Media…

Nirvana Business Solutions Private Limited, Bangalore vs. ITO, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 265/BANG/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jun 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri Anand Murthy, B.NFor Respondent: Shri P. Chandrashekar, CIT
Section 1OSection 92C

…Circular No. 14(XI-35) of 1955 dated 1.4.1955 cautions the Officers of the Department from taking advantage of ignorance of an assessee as to his rights. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in 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 clearly provides that no tax shall be 13 IT(TP)A No.265(B)2011 levied or collected except by authority of law. Similar view has been taken recently by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in Sancheti Software and Solutions P. Ltd. VS. CIT (201…

Sanjay Jain, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

The appeal is partly allowed

ITA 146/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jun 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri O.P. Kant Assessment Year: 2010-11 Sanjay Jain, Vs. Acit, Chamber No. 488, Circle 37(1), Delhi High Court Block-Ii. New Delhi. Sher Shah Road, New Delhi. (Pan: Aagpj8607A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ra Bansal & Smt. Prem Lata Bansal, Adv. Department By : Smt. Anima Barnwal, Dr Date Of Hearing : 21.03.2016 Date Of Pronouncement: 15 :06.2016 Order Per I.C. Sudhir:The Assessee Has Questioned First Appellate Order On The Following Grounds: 1. That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.16,70,574/- Made By The Assessing Officer To The Long Term Capital Gain Declared By The Assessee At Rs.1,47,823/-. Since The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer Is Contrary To Law & Therefore, Liable To Be Set Aside. 2. That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Ignoring The Cost Of Improvement While Calculating Long Term Capital Gain Earned By The Assessee On Transfer Of Property.

For Appellant: Shri RA Bansal & Smt. Prem LataFor Respondent: Smt. Anima Barnwal, DR
Section 28Section 37Section 40A(3)Section 48Section 54

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH “G” NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI I.C. SUDHIR AND SHRI O.P. KANT Assessment Year: 2010-11 Sanjay Jain, vs. ACIT, Chamber No. 488, Circle 37(1), Delhi High Court Block-II. New Delhi. Sher Shah Road, New Delhi. (PAN: AAGPJ8607A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri RA Bansal & Smt. Prem Lata Bansal, Adv. Department by : Smt. Anima Barnwal, DR Date of hearing : 21.03.2016 Date of pronouncement: 15 :06.2016 ORDER PER I.C. SUDHIR: JUDICIAL MEMBER The assessee has questioned first appellate order on the following grounds: 1. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on fa…

DCIT Cen Cir 9, Mumbai vs. Tribhovandas Bhimji Zaveri (Delhi) P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year

ITA 2861/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Amarjit Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.2250 & 2251/Mum/2013 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2010-11) M/S Tribhovandas Bhimji बनाम/ Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle 9, Zaveri (Delhi) Pvt.Ltd., Vs. Room No.806, Ground Floor, Old C G O Annexe Bldg, Somnath Apartments, M K Road, Marine Lines, Ram Mandir Road, Mumbai-400020 Vile Parle (E), Mumbai-400057 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 69

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

DCIT Cen Cir 9, Mumbai vs. Tribhovandas Bhimji Zaveri (Delhi) P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year

ITA 2860/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Amarjit Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.2250 & 2251/Mum/2013 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2010-11) M/S Tribhovandas Bhimji बनाम/ Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle 9, Zaveri (Delhi) Pvt.Ltd., Vs. Room No.806, Ground Floor, Old C G O Annexe Bldg, Somnath Apartments, M K Road, Marine Lines, Ram Mandir Road, Mumbai-400020 Vile Parle (E), Mumbai-400057 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 69

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

Tribhuvandas Bhimji Zaveri (Delhi ) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 9, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year

ITA 2251/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Amarjit Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.2250 & 2251/Mum/2013 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2010-11) M/S Tribhovandas Bhimji बनाम/ Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle 9, Zaveri (Delhi) Pvt.Ltd., Vs. Room No.806, Ground Floor, Old C G O Annexe Bldg, Somnath Apartments, M K Road, Marine Lines, Ram Mandir Road, Mumbai-400020 Vile Parle (E), Mumbai-400057 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 69

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

Tribhuvandas Bhimji Zaveri (Delhi ) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 9, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year

ITA 2250/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Amarjit Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.2250 & 2251/Mum/2013 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2010-11) M/S Tribhovandas Bhimji बनाम/ Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle 9, Zaveri (Delhi) Pvt.Ltd., Vs. Room No.806, Ground Floor, Old C G O Annexe Bldg, Somnath Apartments, M K Road, Marine Lines, Ram Mandir Road, Mumbai-400020 Vile Parle (E), Mumbai-400057 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 69

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