Parekh Bros. v. CIT

150 ITR 105High Court1984#5578 most cited

What is Parekh Bros. v. CIT authority for?

The Department cannot take advantage of an assessee's ignorance, especially when a surrender is made solely to achieve peace and the assessee is not an expert in income tax matters.

21

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Parekh Bros. v. CIT · 150 ITR 105 · 15 Taxmann 539 · CBDT Circular No. 14(XL-35)/1955 · ignorance of assessee · surrender to buy peace · tax expert · advantage of ignorance

Also reported as

15 Taxmann 539

Sections most often in play

Section 148Section 153ASection 153DSection 147Section 144ASection 145(3)Section 40A(3)Section 56(2)(vii)(b)

Issues it is cited on

section 135asection 148bsection 139(9)section 142aprohibited by lawsection 40a(ia)section 269tstay petitionsection 253(3)section 135section 149(1)(b)section 144a

Judgments citing Parekh Bros. v. CIT

ACIT, Central Circle-II, Lucknow vs. Rakesh Kumar Pandey, Gonda U.P

In the result, the outcome of the appeals and Cross Objections are as under:

ITA 460/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow11 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 132Section 253(3)

…ase, surrender was to buy the peace as the assessee is not an expert in income tax matter. The Department cannot take the advantage of the ignorance of the assessee as per CBDT CirculrNo.14(XL-35)/1955 dated 01.04.1955 mentioned in Parekh Bros. v. CIT [1984] 150 ITR 105/[1983] 15 Taxman 539 (Ker.) C. No incriminating material – No Addition – In unabated years (AY 2014-15 to AY 2019-20) [2023] 149 taxmann.com 399 (SC)/[2023] 293 Taxman 141 (SC) Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Central- 3v.AbhisarBuildwell (P.)Ltd.* 14. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, it is concluded as under: (i) tha…

Rakesh Kumar Pandey, Gonda vs. DCIT/ACIT (Central)-2, Lucknow

In the result, the outcome of the appeals and Cross Objections are as under:

ITA 351/LKW/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow11 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 132Section 253(3)

…ase, surrender was to buy the peace as the assessee is not an expert in income tax matter. The Department cannot take the advantage of the ignorance of the assessee as per CBDT CirculrNo.14(XL-35)/1955 dated 01.04.1955 mentioned in Parekh Bros. v. CIT [1984] 150 ITR 105/[1983] 15 Taxman 539 (Ker.) C. No incriminating material – No Addition – In unabated years (AY 2014-15 to AY 2019-20) [2023] 149 taxmann.com 399 (SC)/[2023] 293 Taxman 141 (SC) Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Central- 3v.AbhisarBuildwell (P.)Ltd.* 14. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, it is concluded as under: (i) tha…

Rakesh Kumar Pandey, Gonda vs. DCIT/ACIT (Central)-2, Lucknow

In the result, the outcome of the appeals and Cross Objections are as under:

ITA 349/LKW/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow11 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 132Section 253(3)

…ase, surrender was to buy the peace as the assessee is not an expert in income tax matter. The Department cannot take the advantage of the ignorance of the assessee as per CBDT CirculrNo.14(XL-35)/1955 dated 01.04.1955 mentioned in Parekh Bros. v. CIT [1984] 150 ITR 105/[1983] 15 Taxman 539 (Ker.) C. No incriminating material – No Addition – In unabated years (AY 2014-15 to AY 2019-20) [2023] 149 taxmann.com 399 (SC)/[2023] 293 Taxman 141 (SC) Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Central- 3v.AbhisarBuildwell (P.)Ltd.* 14. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, it is concluded as under: (i) tha…

Sarvodaya Samaj Kalyan Sansthan, Jamui vs. CPC, Bangaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 563/PAT/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Patna26 Nov 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 10Section 143Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250

…, could be admitted in section 154 proceedings. It is the correct legal position that is relevant, and not the view that the parties may take of their rights in the matter (CIT v. C. Parakh & Co. (India) Ltd. [1956] 29 ITR 661 (SC); Parekh Bros. v. CIT [1984] 150 ITR 105 (Ker)). Also see: Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 363 (SC). Proceedings under the Act, it may be clarified, are not in the nature of a lis (Gadgil (S.S.) v. Lal & Co. [1964] 53 ITR 321 (SC)). 14. For that the appellant is an accredited institution supported by Government, alternate claim for exemption u/s. 10(23C)(iiiad), the sa…

Ishar Infrastructure Develpopers Private Limited, Bathinda vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Bathinda

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

ITA 686/ASR/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar28 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. No. 686/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2022-23

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 32(2)Section 72Section 72(3)

…is arguments on this issue by submitting that the assessee should not be denied the benefit , simply for technical lapses, which is otherwise legally allowable, and relied on the following decisions for support: Parekh Brothers vs. CIT 15 Taxman 539 (Kerala)/ 150 ITR 105 (Kerala). S & P Capital IQ (India) (P.) Ltd. vs. ACIT, 158 taxmann.com 12 (Hyd. Trib). Nehru Memorial Education Society vs. ITO (Exemp.) 161 taxmann.com 312 (Cochin Trib.). 7. Regarding the claim of unabsorbed depreciation brought forward amounting to Rs.1,50,49,432/- the Ld AR submitted that the first appellate authority has denied the set off…

Divyadatta Digamber Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Limited Satara, Koregaon vs. Income Tax Officer, Satara

The appeal of the assessee is ALLOWED in above terms

ITA 651/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 651/Pun/2024 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Divyadatta Digamber Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Moti Heights, Azaad Chowk, New St-Stand, Koregaon, Satara-415501 Pan: Aaeas1871L . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

For Appellant: Mr Pr[mo^ Scnat_ [‘L^. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Uma Shankar Prasad [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 80Section 80ASection 80A(5)Section 80P(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PUNE ‘SMC’ BENCH, PUNE BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI G. D. PADMAHSHALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपऩल सं. / ITA No. 651/PUN/2024 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Divyadatta Digamber Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Moti Heights, Azaad Chowk, New ST-Stand, Koregaon, Satara-415501 PAN: AAEAS1871L . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिधम / V/s The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Satara . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent द्वधरध / Appearances Assessee by : Mr Pr[mo^ Scnat_ [‘L^. AR’] Revenue by : Mr Uma Shankar Prasad [‘Ld. DR’] सुनवाई की तारीख /…

Ummannoor Rural Co-Op Society, Kollam vs. The ITO Ward 4, Kollam

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the stay application is dismissed

ITA 299/COCH/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K

For Respondent: Sri.Ilaiyaraja K.S., Senior DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 80Section 80HSection 80P

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Chandra Poojari, Accountant Member & Shri Soundararajan K, Judicial Member ITA No.299/Coch/2023: Asst.Year : 2018-2019 & SA No.62/Coch/2023 Ummannoor Rural Co- The Income Tax Officer operative Society, Ummannoor Ward 4 vs. Valakom, Kollam – 691 532. Kollam. PAN: AAAAU8839L. (Appellant/Applicant) (Respondent) Appellant /Applicant by: Sri.Sabu C.S., CA Respondent by: Sri.Ilaiyaraja K.S., Senior DR Date of Date of Hearing : 03.07.2024 Pronouncement: 25.07.2024 O R D E R Per Soundararajan K, JM : The present appeal filed by the assessee challenging…

Omkar 1998 Co Op Housing Society Ltd, College Road vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Nashik, Gadkari Chowk

The appeal of the assessee is ALLOWED and all the grounds stands adjudicated accordingly

ITA 284/PUN/2024[A.Y. 2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 May 2024

Bench: Hon’Ble S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 0284/Pun/2024 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: None for the AssesseeFor Respondent: Mr Ramnath Murkunde [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 143(1)Section 250Section 80P(2)(d)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PUNE ‘A’ BENCH, PUNE BEFORE HON’BLE S. S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. D. PADMAHSHALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपऩल सं. / ITA No. 0284/PUN/2024 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Omkar 1998 Co-op. Housing Society Patil Lane No-3, College Road, Nashik-422005 PAN: AAAAO3664M . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिधम / V/s Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Nashik . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent द्वधरध / Appearances Assessee by : None for the Assessee Revenue by : Mr Ramnath Murkunde [‘Ld. DR’] सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of conclusive Hearing : 28/05//2024 घोषणा क…

Kathikode Charitable Trust, Thrissur vs. Income Tax Officer, Thrissur

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes, and it’s stay petitions dismissed as infructuous

ITA 948/COCH/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin10 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: Shri Jojo, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2

…is due to him. The Revenue cannot take advantage of the ignorance of the assessee as to his rights. Similar instructions stand issued by the Hon'ble Courts whenever such instances have come up before them for their consideration (Parekh Brothers v. CIT [1984] 150 ITR 105 (Ker);CIT v. K.N. Oil Industries [1983] 142 ITR 13 (MP)). It would in this context be relevant to reproduce from a recent decision by 6 | P a g e ITA Nos. 947 & 948/Coch/2022 (AY : 2014-15) Kathikode Charitable Trust v. ITO the Cochin Bench (Changanacherry Co-op. ARDB Ltd. v. ITO, in ITA 939/Coch/2022, dated 16/4/2024), wherein, again, the asses…

Kathikode Charitable Trust, Thrissur vs. Income Tax Officer., Thrissur

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes, and it’s stay petitions dismissed as infructuous

ITA 947/COCH/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin10 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: Shri Jojo, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2

…is due to him. The Revenue cannot take advantage of the ignorance of the assessee as to his rights. Similar instructions stand issued by the Hon'ble Courts whenever such instances have come up before them for their consideration (Parekh Brothers v. CIT [1984] 150 ITR 105 (Ker);CIT v. K.N. Oil Industries [1983] 142 ITR 13 (MP)). It would in this context be relevant to reproduce from a recent decision by 6 | P a g e ITA Nos. 947 & 948/Coch/2022 (AY : 2014-15) Kathikode Charitable Trust v. ITO the Cochin Bench (Changanacherry Co-op. ARDB Ltd. v. ITO, in ITA 939/Coch/2022, dated 16/4/2024), wherein, again, the asses…

The Nehru Memorial Education Society, Kanhangad vs. ITO Exemptions, Kannur

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 159/COCH/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin07 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Dr. S. Seethalakshmithe Nehru Memorial The Income Tax Officer Education Society (Exemptions), Kannur Lakshmi Nivas Vs. Kanhangad - 671315 Kasaragod [Pan:Aabtt0633M] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Veeramani, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 10Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(d)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 2

…o does, i.e., is sans any finding qua the same. It is the correct legal position that is relevant, and not the view that the parties may take of their rights in the matter (CIT v. C. Parakh & Co. (India) Ltd. [1956] 29 ITR 661 (SC); Parekh Bros. v. CIT [1984] 150 ITR 105 (Ker)). Also see: Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 363 (SC). Proceedings under the Act, it may be clarified, are not in the nature of a lis (Gadgil (S.S.) v. Lal & Co. [1964] 53 ITR 321 (SC)). An incorrect action by the AO, where so, would not bind the Tribunal. So however, in our view, the AO has rightly considered the assessee’…

Nikunj Kaushik Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-32(1), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed on merits

ITA 2919/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyalnikunj Kaushik Shah, 201, Laxmi Palace Chsl, Vileparle (East), Mumbai- 400057, Pan: Apeps6446R ...... Appellant Vs. Ito-32(1), R. No. 335, Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Bandra (E) Mumbai- 400051 ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Kothari, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha, Ld. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 149(1)(b)Section 250Section 68Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “B”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Nikunj Kaushik Shah, 201, Laxmi Palace CHSL, Vileparle (East), Mumbai- 400057, PAN: APEPS6446R ...... Appellant Vs. ITO-32(1), R. No. 335, Kautilya Bhavan, BKC, Bandra (E) Mumbai- 400051 ..... Respondent Appellant by : Shri Rajesh Kothari, Ld. AR Respondent by : Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha, Ld. DR Date of hearing : 12/12/2023 Date of pronouncement : 29/01/2024 O R D E R PER GAGAN GOYAL, A.M: This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of National Faceless…

Tech Data(Singapore) Pte Limited, Mumbai vs. The Deputy Comm. of Income Tax (It) Circle -4(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, ground No.3 of appeal is allowed

ITA 2367/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं.2367/मुं/ 2022 (िन.व.2019-20) Tech Data (Singapore) Pte Limited, 10, #05-17/20 Techpoint, Ang Mo Kio Street 65, Singapore -569059 Pan: Aagct-0951-J ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax International Taxation, Circle -4(1)(2) Mumbai . ..... "ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri Nitesh Joshi "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Shri Avneesh Tiwari सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 22/05/2023 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 21/08/2023 आदेश आदेश/ Order आदेश आदेश Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 19/07/2022 Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [ In Short ‘The Act], For The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. The Assessee In Appeal Has Raised Five Grounds. The Gist Of Grounds Raised By The Assessee In Appeal Is As Under: (I) Challenge To Validity Of Assessment – Notice U/S. 143(2) Of The Act Issued Without Authority.

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Avneesh Tiwari
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 274

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण मुंबई पीठ “आई ”, मुंबई पीठ "ी िवकास अव"थी, "याियक सद"य एवं "ी गगन गोयल, लेखाकार सद"य के सम" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “I ”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आअसं.2367/मुं/ 2022 (िन.व.2019-20) Tech Data (Singapore) Pte Limited, 10, #05-17/20 Techpoint, Ang Mo Kio Street 65, Singapore -569059 PAN: AAGCT-0951-J ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax International Taxation, Circle -4(1)(2) Mumbai . ..... "ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant by : Shri Nitesh Joshi "ितवादी "ारा/…

Gmr Energy Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Director Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 526/BANG/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Sept 2022AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Jagdish K. Jogi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

…tion / relief not claimed should be allowed if the same is permissible in law: 7. CBDT Circular No. 14(XL-35), dated 11-4-1955 29-31 29-31 8. 32-36 10 35 Kerala High Court in the case of Raghavan Nair v. Asstt. CIT [2018] (402 ITR 400) 9. Parekh Bros. vs CIT (150 ITR 105) / (15 Taxman 37-46 Held 37- 38 539) (Kerala High Court) 10. ITAT Chennai Bench in the case of 47-59 8 59 Perlos Telecommunication & Electronic Components India (P) Ltd. v. Asst. CIT (IT Appeal No.1037 (Mad.) of 2013, dated 18.11.2013) ITA Nos.513 & 526/Bang/2022 M/s. GMR Energy Limited, Bangalore Page 6 of 22 11. ITAT Chennai Bench in the case…

Gmr Energy Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 513/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Sept 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Jagdish K. Jogi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

…tion / relief not claimed should be allowed if the same is permissible in law: 7. CBDT Circular No. 14(XL-35), dated 11-4-1955 29-31 29-31 8. 32-36 10 35 Kerala High Court in the case of Raghavan Nair v. Asstt. CIT [2018] (402 ITR 400) 9. Parekh Bros. vs CIT (150 ITR 105) / (15 Taxman 37-46 Held 37- 38 539) (Kerala High Court) 10. ITAT Chennai Bench in the case of 47-59 8 59 Perlos Telecommunication & Electronic Components India (P) Ltd. v. Asst. CIT (IT Appeal No.1037 (Mad.) of 2013, dated 18.11.2013) ITA Nos.513 & 526/Bang/2022 M/s. GMR Energy Limited, Bangalore Page 6 of 22 11. ITAT Chennai Bench in the case…

DCIT Cen Cir 8(3), Mumbai vs. Vrindavan Services P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 235/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh() & Shri G Manjunatha ()

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 28Section 80

…assessee. In the instant case, surrender was to buy the peace as the assessee is not an expert in income tax matter. The Department cannot take the advantage of the ignorance of the assessee as per CBDT Circular No.14(XL35)/1955 dated 01.04.1955 mentioned in 150 ITR 105 (Kar). 14. In the instant case, the statement was recorded of the broker, who had confirmed the sale and purchase. No concealment was made by the assessee even then she has made an offer to treat the said income as income from "other sources". The only reason for making the addition is that it was not entered in the register of the company, for w…

DCIT Cen Cir 8(3), Mumbai vs. Tranquil Homes & Holding P.Ltd, Bangalore

ITA 299/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia () & Shri Ashwani Taneja ()

Section 143(3)Section 28Section 41(1)

…se, surrender was to buy the peace as the assessee is not an expert in income tax matter. The Department cannot take the advantage of the 14 ITA 238 & 299/Mum/2015 ignorance of the assessee as per CBDT Circular No.14(XL- 35)/1955 dated 01.04.1955 mentioned in 150 ITR 105 (Kar). 14. In the instant case, the statement was recorded of the broker, who had confirmed the sale and purchase. No concealment was made by the assessee even then she has made an offer to treat the said income as income from "other sources". The only reason for making the addition is that it was not entered in the register of the company, for w…

DCIT Cen Cir 8(3), Mumbai vs. Nalwa Chrome P.Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 238/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia () & Shri Ashwani Taneja ()

Section 143(3)Section 28Section 41(1)

…se, surrender was to buy the peace as the assessee is not an expert in income tax matter. The Department cannot take the advantage of the 14 ITA 238 & 299/Mum/2015 ignorance of the assessee as per CBDT Circular No.14(XL- 35)/1955 dated 01.04.1955 mentioned in 150 ITR 105 (Kar). 14. In the instant case, the statement was recorded of the broker, who had confirmed the sale and purchase. No concealment was made by the assessee even then she has made an offer to treat the said income as income from "other sources". The only reason for making the addition is that it was not entered in the register of the company, for w…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Shyam Sunder Khemka, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5378/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jul 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2009-10 Dcit, Circle-5(1), Room No. Vs. Sh. Shyam Sunder Khemka, 409A, C.R. Building, I.P. E-292, Sarita Vihar, New Estate, New Delhi Delhi Gir/Pan :Aanpk9254H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Smt. Anima Barnwal, Sr.Dr Respondent By Dr. Rakesh Gupta & Sh. Somil Aggarwal, Advocates Date Of Hearing 29.06.2016 Date Of Pronouncement 29.07.2016 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against Order Dated 18/07/2013 Of Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Vii, New Delhi For Assessment Year 2009-10, Raising Following Grounds: I. Whether In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Allowing 100% Deduction U/S 80Ic Instead Of 25% By Considering Return Of Income Which Was Filed After Due Date U/S 139(5) Of The It Act? Ii. Whether In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Accepting The Additional Evidence

Section 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80I

…s legally entitled for the exemption under section 11, if not under section 10(23C). The department should not take advantage of the ignorance of the assessee as per the CBDT Circular No.14 (XL-35)/1955, dated 11-4- 1955, quoted in Parekh Bros. vs. CIT [1984] 150 ITR 105 (Ker.). Hence it was the duty of the Assessing Officer to ask information from the assessee at the time of scrutiny but he has not asked any information before completing the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act. Hon’ble ITAT, Mumbai held in the case of EMERSON NETWORK POWER INDIA (P) LTD. vs. ACIT 122 TTJ 67 (MUM) that AO was obliged to gi…

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

…ssee u/s 54 of the Act. It is a well established principle of law that where an assessee is entitled to a deduction then the same has to be allowed by the Assessing Officer, even if the same had not been claimed in the return of income. In Parekh Bras vs CIT (150 ITR 105), Kerala High Court have held that “ordinarily the question as to whether an assessee is entitled to a deduction or not will depend on the relevant provisions of law relating thereto and not on the view which the assessee might take of his rights, or the method and manner in which accounts are kept. The circular issued by Central Board of Direct…

Parekh Bros. v. CIT (150 ITR 105) — Cited in 21 Judgments | BharatTax