R.B. Jessaram Fatehchand v. CIT

81 ITR 409High Court1971#7509 most cited

What is R.B. Jessaram Fatehchand v. CIT authority for?

An assessee is not estopped from claiming that a single assessment should have been made under Section 26(1) even if they previously filed separate returns for parts of a single accounting period, as there cannot be an estoppel against a statute.

15

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

R.B. Jessaram Fatehchand v. CIT · 81 ITR 409 · Section 26(1) · single assessment · separate returns · accounting period · estoppel against statute

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 234BSection 234CSection 271AASection 271BASection 36Section 36(1)(vii)

Issues it is cited on

section 100profit split methodbright line testresale price methodsection 36(l)(va)amp expendituremultiple year datasection 92esection 92(1)cost plus methodfar analysissection 92b

Judgments citing R.B. Jessaram Fatehchand v. CIT

Oakton Global Technology Services Centre (I) Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 32/HYD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Bharadawaj, C.AFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 92B

…included the income in its return for a particular year, it cannot confer jurisdiction on the department to tax that income in that year even though legally such income did not pertain to that year." 32. In the case of R.B. Jessaram Fatehchand v. CIT [1971] 81 ITR 409 (All.), it has been found and observed as under: ITA Nos.32/Hyd/2019 & 8 2130/Hyd/2017 "Mr. Brijlal Gupta appearing for the department pointed out that the assessee itself filed separate returns for the two parts of a single accounting period. The assessee applied for registration for the first period only. The assessment for the second period p…

Oakton Global Technology Services Centre (India) Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2130/HYD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Bharadawaj, C.AFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 92B

…included the income in its return for a particular year, it cannot confer jurisdiction on the department to tax that income in that year even though legally such income did not pertain to that year." 32. In the case of R.B. Jessaram Fatehchand v. CIT [1971] 81 ITR 409 (All.), it has been found and observed as under: ITA Nos.32/Hyd/2019 & 8 2130/Hyd/2017 "Mr. Brijlal Gupta appearing for the department pointed out that the assessee itself filed separate returns for the two parts of a single accounting period. The assessee applied for registration for the first period only. The assessment for the second period p…

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

…rala: 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 ITD 161 (Delhi SB); and xvii) ITO v. GE Hawn : 2l ITD 553 (All.) 148. Referring to the following deci…

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

…rala: 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 ITD 161 (Delhi SB); and xvii) ITO v. GE Hawn : 2l ITD 553 (All.) 148. Referring to the following deci…

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

…rala: 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 ITD 161 (Delhi SB); and xvii) ITO v. GE Hawn : 2l ITD 553 (All.) 148. Referring to the following deci…

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

…rala: 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 ITD 161 (Delhi SB); and xvii) ITO v. GE Hawn : 2l ITD 553 (All.) 148. Referring to the following deci…

Prometric Testing Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Gurgaon

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee and the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 499/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jan 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant[Through Video Conferencing]

Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘I-2’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER [Through Video Conferencing] ITA No.499/Del./2015 Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/s. Prometric Testing (P) Vs. DCIT, Ltd., Circle-2, 2nd Floor, DLF Infinity Gurgaon Tower-A, Sec.-25, Phase-II, DLF City, Gurgaon PAN :AACCP5202A (Appellant) (Respondent) AND ITA No.397/Del./2015 Assessment Year: 2008-09 DCIT, Vs. M/s. Prometric Testing (P) Circle-3, Ltd., Gurgaon 2nd Floor, DLF Infinity Tower- A, Sec.-25, Phase-II, DLF City, Gurgaon PAN :AAACP5202A (Appellant) (Respondent)…

DCIT, Gurgaon vs. M/S. Prometric Testing (P) Ltd., Gurgaon

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee and the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 397/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jan 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant[Through Video Conferencing]

Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘I-2’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER [Through Video Conferencing] ITA No.499/Del./2015 Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/s. Prometric Testing (P) Vs. DCIT, Ltd., Circle-2, 2nd Floor, DLF Infinity Gurgaon Tower-A, Sec.-25, Phase-II, DLF City, Gurgaon PAN :AACCP5202A (Appellant) (Respondent) AND ITA No.397/Del./2015 Assessment Year: 2008-09 DCIT, Vs. M/s. Prometric Testing (P) Circle-3, Ltd., Gurgaon 2nd Floor, DLF Infinity Tower- A, Sec.-25, Phase-II, DLF City, Gurgaon PAN :AAACP5202A (Appellant) (Respondent)…

Cisco Video Technologies (India) Private Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed and the appeal of the revenue is treated as partly allowed

ITA 597/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Nov 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.476/Bang/2016 Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, D.R
Section 143(3)

…IT(TP)A Nos.476 & 597/Bang/2016 M/s. Synamedia India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(TP)A No.476/Bang/2016 Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/s. Synamedia India Pvt. Ltd. (Earlier known as M/s. Cisco Video Deputy Commissioner of Technologies India Pvt. Ltd.) Income-tax Block 9A & 9B, Pritech Park Vs. Circle -2(1)(1) Special Economic Zone Bangalore Survey No.51-64/4, Sarjapur Outer Ring Road, Bellandur Village PAN NO : AACCN1140K Bangalore-560 103 APPELLANT RESPONDENT IT(TP)A N…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Cisco Video Technologies India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed and the appeal of the revenue is treated as partly allowed

ITA 476/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Nov 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.476/Bang/2016 Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, D.R
Section 143(3)

…IT(TP)A Nos.476 & 597/Bang/2016 M/s. Synamedia India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(TP)A No.476/Bang/2016 Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/s. Synamedia India Pvt. Ltd. (Earlier known as M/s. Cisco Video Deputy Commissioner of Technologies India Pvt. Ltd.) Income-tax Block 9A & 9B, Pritech Park Vs. Circle -2(1)(1) Special Economic Zone Bangalore Survey No.51-64/4, Sarjapur Outer Ring Road, Bellandur Village PAN NO : AACCN1140K Bangalore-560 103 APPELLANT RESPONDENT IT(TP)A N…

Sh. Evalueserve.Com Private Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result ground No. 8 of the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4001/DEL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 May 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri I. C. Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishievalueserve.Com Private Vs. Ito, Ltd, Ward-11(2), 701, Guru Apartments, New Delhi Sector-14, Rohni, New Delhi Pan: Aaace8014F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: i. Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv ii. Sh. Sumit Lal ChandaniFor Respondent: Sh. Neeraj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 10ASection 143(3)(ii)Section 234BSection 271Section 92Section 92C

…E Valueserve.com Pvt Ltd V ITO ITA 4001/del/2013 AY 2006-07 INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ―I-2‖: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI I. C. SUDHIR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Evalueserve.com Private Vs. ITO, Ltd, Ward-11(2), 701, Guru Apartments, New Delhi Sector-14, Rohni, New Delhi PAN: AAACE8014F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : i. Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv ii. Sh. Sumit Lal Chandani, Adv iii. Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv Revenue by: Sh. Neeraj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 09/03/2017 Date of pronouncement 11/05/2017 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. 1. This is an appeal…

ITO 10(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Lionbridge Technologies P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 290/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. A.D. Jainand Sh. N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: S/Sh. Ajay Vohra. Sr.Advocate & N.K. Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Sh. N.K.Chand, CIT(DR) & Jitendra Yadav

….Parakh & Co. (India ) Ltd.”, 29 ITR 661 (SC) ii) “CIT vs. V.M.R.P. Firm”, 56 ITR 67 (SC) iii) “National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. vs. CIT”, 229 ITR 383(SC) iv) “CIT vs. Enron Expat Services Ind.”, 327 ITR 626 (Uttrakhand) v) “R.B.Jessa Ram Fateh Chand vs. CIT”, 81 ITR 409 (All.) vi) “Pandit Seho Nath Prasad Sharma vs. CIT”, 66 ITR 647 (Del.) vii) “CIT vs. Bharat General Reinsurance Co. Ltd. ”, 81 ITR 303 (Del). viii) “DCIT vs. Quark Systems Pvt. Ltd.”, ITA No.s 100 & 115/Chd/2009 (SB) [approved by the Hon’ble P & H Court). ix) Honeywell Autoation India Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT”, (ITA No.4/PN/08). x) Sapient Corporatio…

Lionbridge Technologies P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO 8(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 7415/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. A.D. Jainand Sh. N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: S/Sh. Ajay Vohra. Sr.Advocate & N.K. Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Sh. N.K.Chand, CIT(DR) & Jitendra Yadav

….Parakh & Co. (India ) Ltd.”, 29 ITR 661 (SC) ii) “CIT vs. V.M.R.P. Firm”, 56 ITR 67 (SC) iii) “National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. vs. CIT”, 229 ITR 383(SC) iv) “CIT vs. Enron Expat Services Ind.”, 327 ITR 626 (Uttrakhand) v) “R.B.Jessa Ram Fateh Chand vs. CIT”, 81 ITR 409 (All.) vi) “Pandit Seho Nath Prasad Sharma vs. CIT”, 66 ITR 647 (Del.) vii) “CIT vs. Bharat General Reinsurance Co. Ltd. ”, 81 ITR 303 (Del). viii) “DCIT vs. Quark Systems Pvt. Ltd.”, ITA No.s 100 & 115/Chd/2009 (SB) [approved by the Hon’ble P & H Court). ix) Honeywell Autoation India Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT”, (ITA No.4/PN/08). x) Sapient Corporatio…

Lionbridge Technologies P. Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO RG 8(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 668/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. A.D. Jainand Sh. N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: S/Sh. Ajay Vohra. Sr.Advocate & N.K. Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Sh. N.K.Chand, CIT(DR) & Jitendra Yadav

….Parakh & Co. (India ) Ltd.”, 29 ITR 661 (SC) ii) “CIT vs. V.M.R.P. Firm”, 56 ITR 67 (SC) iii) “National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. vs. CIT”, 229 ITR 383(SC) iv) “CIT vs. Enron Expat Services Ind.”, 327 ITR 626 (Uttrakhand) v) “R.B.Jessa Ram Fateh Chand vs. CIT”, 81 ITR 409 (All.) vi) “Pandit Seho Nath Prasad Sharma vs. CIT”, 66 ITR 647 (Del.) vii) “CIT vs. Bharat General Reinsurance Co. Ltd. ”, 81 ITR 303 (Del). viii) “DCIT vs. Quark Systems Pvt. Ltd.”, ITA No.s 100 & 115/Chd/2009 (SB) [approved by the Hon’ble P & H Court). ix) Honeywell Autoation India Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT”, (ITA No.4/PN/08). x) Sapient Corporatio…

ITO 8(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Lionbridge Technologies P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1375/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. A.D. Jainand Sh. N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: S/Sh. Ajay Vohra. Sr.Advocate & N.K. Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Sh. N.K.Chand, CIT(DR) & Jitendra Yadav

….Parakh & Co. (India ) Ltd.”, 29 ITR 661 (SC) ii) “CIT vs. V.M.R.P. Firm”, 56 ITR 67 (SC) iii) “National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. vs. CIT”, 229 ITR 383(SC) iv) “CIT vs. Enron Expat Services Ind.”, 327 ITR 626 (Uttrakhand) v) “R.B.Jessa Ram Fateh Chand vs. CIT”, 81 ITR 409 (All.) vi) “Pandit Seho Nath Prasad Sharma vs. CIT”, 66 ITR 647 (Del.) vii) “CIT vs. Bharat General Reinsurance Co. Ltd. ”, 81 ITR 303 (Del). viii) “DCIT vs. Quark Systems Pvt. Ltd.”, ITA No.s 100 & 115/Chd/2009 (SB) [approved by the Hon’ble P & H Court). ix) Honeywell Autoation India Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT”, (ITA No.4/PN/08). x) Sapient Corporatio…

R.B. Jessaram Fatehchand v. CIT (81 ITR 409) — Cited in 15 Judgments | BharatTax