S.R. Koshti v. CIT

276 ITR 165High Court2005#414 most cited

What is S.R. Koshti v. CIT authority for?

Tax authorities have an obligation to act in accordance with law and assist assessees who are over-assessed due to mistake, misconception, or lack of proper instruction, ensuring only legitimate taxes are collected.

217

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,357 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

S.R. Koshti v. CIT · assessment procedure · over-assessment · assistance to assessee · correct tax collection · authorities under the Act

Also reported as

146 Taxmann 335

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 132Section 132(4)Section 147Section 131(1A)Section 142(1)

Issues it is cited on

undisclosed foreign income and assetssection 149(1)(c)section 4(2)section 201(3)section 158basection 150unexplained jewellerysection 70beyond four yearssection 18statement under section 132(4)section 149(1)(b)

Judgments citing S.R. Koshti v. CIT

Smt. Vijayamma Syamprakash Vaidyan, Surat vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(3), Surat

In the result the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2192/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 Nov 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Virtual Hearing) आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.2192/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 Smt.Vijayamma Syamprakash Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Vaidyan, Income Tax, Circle-1(3), Surat. 832, Q-Tower, Ashirwad Palace, Near Jamna Nagar Bus Stand, Jivkornagar, Bhatar, Surat – 395007. [Pan: Akmps 7570 B] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

…te authority is not restrict, though AO is not entitled to consider the fresh claim in absence of revised return. In strengthen his submission, the Ld. AR of the assessee also relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in S. R. Koshi Vs CIT 276 ITR 165 and decision of Ahmedabad Tribunal in Adani Power Ltd., in ITA No.1663 and 1686/AHD/2014 dated 28.06.2018. Smt.Vijayamma S.Vaidyan Vs. DCIT, Circle-1(3), Surat/ ITA No.2192/AHD/2016 for A.Y. 2012-13 The Ld.AR of the assessee prayed that the grounds of appeal raised by assessee may be restored to the file of the AO to consider the additional clai…

Jiten Bhavanji Vora, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC- 7(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 6670/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2020AY 2016-17
Section 132Section 271A

…der the Act. If any assessee, under a mistake, misconceptions 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, (see S.R. Kosti v. CIT [2005] 276 ITR 165 (Guj.), CPA Yoosuf v. ITO [1970] 77 ITR 237 (Ker.), CIT v. Bharat General Reinsurance Co. Ltd. [1971] 81 ITR 303 (Delhi), CIT v. Archana R. Dhanwatey [1982] 136 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…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Buniyad Developers Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5290/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Sept 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. Rajiv Saxena, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 10Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 148Section 2(14)Section 2(14)(iii)

…e, misconception or 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, as was held by Hon’ble Gujrat High Court in the case of S.R. Koshti vs. CIT, 276 ITR 165(Guj). He further submitted that the authorities are under the obligation under the Act to act in accordance with law. Lastly, he placed relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Shelly Products and Another, 261 ITR 367 and submitted that if the assessee had, by mistake and inadvertence or on account of ignorance inclu…

M/S Moolchand Kumawat & Sons, Beawar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Beawar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1013/JPR/2019[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Jul 2020AY 1998-99

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Written submissionFor Respondent: Ms Chanchal Meena (Addl.CIT)
Section 154Section 158BSection 240

…gh Court in above referred case:- 1. Commissioner of Income tax Vs. Shelly Products and Another (2003) 261 ITR 367 (SC) 2. Nirmala L. Mehta Vs. Bala Subramaniam, CIT and others (2004) 269 ITR 1 (Bombay) 3. S. R. Koshti Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (2005) 276 ITR 165 (Gujarat) 4. Saraya Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer and others (1997) 226 ITR 475 (Allahabad) 5. Ajit Jain Vs. Union of India and others (2000) 242 ITR 302 (Delhi) 6. CIT & Dy. CIT (Inv.) Vs. N. R. Sudhir ITA No. 202/2009 Dt. 17/11/2014 (Karnataka) The assessee has submitted that if after passing of an assessment under chapter XIV-B th…

Ardor in-Fin Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1121/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 May 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1121/Ahd/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Ardor-In-Fin P Ltd Ito, Ward-7(3) Ardor House, Vs Ahmedabad. Mondeal Business Park B/S.Gurudwara Thalej, S.G. Road Ahmedabad 380 059. Pan : Aagca 2925 B अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ankit Talsania Revenue By : Shri Lalit P.Jain, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri Ankit TalsaniaFor Respondent: Shri Lalit P.Jain, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 14A

…is over assessed, the authorities under the Act are required to ensure that only legitimate tax dues are collected. This is the view which flows from innumerable judgments including CIT vs. Shelly Products (2003) 261 ITR 367 (SC), S. R. Koshti vs. CIT (2005) 276 ITR 165 (Guj), Ester Industries vs. CIT (2009) 185 TAXMAN 266 (Delhi) and CIT vs. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders (P.) Ltd. [2012] 349 ITR 336 (Bom). The essence of these decisions are that mere admission on the part of the assessee with respect to an addition/disallowance in its original return or in revised return would not ipso facto bar an assessee fr…

Kshitij Marine Services Pvt. Ltd., Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(3), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 360/SRT/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat14 Feb 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Hon'Ble & Shri O.P.Meena, Hon'Bleआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.360/Srt/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S.Kshitij Marine Services Pvt. Ltd., V The Income Tax Officer, O-2, Office Floor, S Ward-1(1)(3), Surat. Madhulika Apartments, Bhatar Road, . Surat [Pan: Aaack 9924 E] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri Rasesh Shah – Ca राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Mrs. Anupam Singla – Sr.Dr

…Kshitij Marine Services Pvt. Ltd., Vs.ITO, Ward-1(1)(3), Surat/ITA No.360/SRT/2017 /A.Y.2012-13 Page 1 of 4 आयकरअपील"यअ"धकरण,सुरत"यायपीठ,सुरत IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, Hon'ble JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P.MEENA, Hon'ble ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.360/SRT/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s.Kshitij Marine Services Pvt. Ltd., V The Income Tax Officer, O-2, Office Floor, s Ward-1(1)(3), Surat. Madhulika Apartments, Bhatar Road, . Surat [PAN: AAACK 9924 E] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee by Shri Rasesh Shah – C…

M/S. Master Developers, Mehsana vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 943/AHD/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Feb 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed)

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Devetia, ARFor Respondent: Shri O.P. Sharma, CIT/DR
Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 40

…the assessee rather the officers of income tax should guide to the assessee and also extend the benefit granted under the Act. 25. We also draw support and guidance from the judgment of Jurisdictional High Court in the case of S.R. Koshti vs. CIT reported in 276 ITR 165 wherein it was held as under: “The supreme court has observed in numerous decisions, including Ramlal V. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. AIR 1962 SC 361, State of West Bengal v. Administrator, Howrah Munisipality AIR 1972 SC 749 and Babutmal Raichand Oswal v. Laxmibai R. Tarte AIR 1975 SC 1297, that the state authorities should not raise technical pleas if…

Mumbai International Airport P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 10(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2018/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jan 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Soodmumbai International Airport Vs. Dcit,Circle-10(2)(2) Private Limited Room No.209,Aaykar Bhawan Finance Department M.K.Road 1St Floor, Terminal 1B Mumbai-400 020 Chhatrapati Shivaji Internaitonal Airport Santacruz (E) Mumbai-400 099 Pan/Gir No.Aaecm6285C (Appellant) .. (Respondent) & Dcit-10(2)(2) Vs. Mumbai International Room No.216-A,Aaykar Bhawan Airport Private Limited M.K.Road Finance Department, 1St Floor, Terminal 1B Mumbai-400 020 Chhatrapati Shivaji Internaitonal Airport Santacruz (E) Mumbai-400 099

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 40

…ssment indicated that the assessee was entitled to such relief under the provisions of the relevant Finance Act, 1965, so far as the order under reference was concerned......” 14.12. Further reference is placed upon another judgment in the case of S.R. Koshti 276 ITR 165 (Guj) in which relief was granted to assessee with following observations: “The authorities under the Act are under an obligation to act in accordance with law. Tax can be collected only as provided under the Act. If an assessee, under a mistake, misconception or on not being properly instructed, is overassessed, the authorities under the Act are…

The DCIT(Exemption), Bhopal vs. M/S. Indore Education and Service Society, Indore

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is

ITA 468/IND/2018[13-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Nov 2019

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2013-14 Dcit M/S. Indore Education & (Exemption) Service Society बनाम/ Bhopal 2Nd Floor, Income Tax Office Vs. Metro Walk Building E-5, Arera Colony Near Bittan Market Bhopal (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aaati3186K

Section 10Section 11Section 13(1)(c)Section 143(3)

…[ITA No.468/Ind/2018] [M/s. Indore Education and Service Society, Indore] आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इ"दौर "यायपीठ, इ"दौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2013-14 DCIT M/s. Indore Education and (Exemption) Service Society बनाम/ Bhopal 2nd Floor, Income Tax Office Vs. Metro Walk Building E-5, Arera Colony Near Bittan Market Bhopal (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.AAATI3186K Appellant by Shri S.S. Mantri, D.R. Respondent by Shri C.S. Padlia, A.R. Date of Hearing: 17.10.2019 Date of Pronouncement: 19…

The DCIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Suzlon Energy Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 972/AHD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Nov 2019AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Tushar P. Hemani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri N.R. Soni, CIT-D.R
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

…is over assessed, the authorities under the Act are required to ensure that only legitimate tax dues are collected. This is the view which flows from innumerable judgments including CIT vs. Shelly Products (2003) 261 ITR 367 (SC), S. R. Koshti vs. CIT (2005) 276 ITR 165 (Guj), Ester Industries vs. CIT (2009) 185 TAXMAN 266 (Delhi) and CIT vs. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders (P.) Ltd. [2012] 349 ITR 336 (Bom). The essence of these decisions are that mere admission on the part of the assessee with respect to an addition/disallowance in its original return or in revised return would not ipso facto bar an assessee fr…

Naresh J. Kotak, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 6(4), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 4635/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Nov 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Ramlal Negiआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 4635-4637 & 4641/Mum/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: (2006-2007 To 2009-10) Shri Naresh J. Kotak, D.C.I.T., C/O. Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp, Vs. Central Circle-6(4), Esplanade House, 2Nd Floor, 29, (Formerly A.C.I.T., Hazarimal Somani Marg, Fort, Central Circle 39) Mumbai-400001. Mumbai.

For Respondent: Lakshmi Vara Prasad Gode
Section 143(3)Section 153A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘’B’’ BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER And SHRI RAMLAL NEGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos. 4635-4637 & 4641/MUM/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: (2006-2007 to 2009-10) Shri Naresh J. Kotak, D.C.I.T., C/o. Kalyaniwalla & Mistry LLP, Vs. Central Circle-6(4), Esplanade House, 2nd Floor, 29, (formerly A.C.I.T., Hazarimal Somani Marg, Fort, Central Circle 39) Mumbai-400001. Mumbai. PAN: AADPK7084K (Applicant) (Respondent) : Assessee by Shri M.M. Golvala, A.R Revenue by : Lakshmi Vara Prasad Gode, CIT.D.R सुनवाई क"…

Reliance Life Sciences P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 7(2), Mumbai

ITA 3883/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri N.K. Pradhan, Hon'Ble&

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Manish Kumar Singh
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…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.” Further reliance is placed by us on another judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court, in the case of, S.R. Koshti 276 ITR 165 (Guj) in which relief was granted to assessee with following observations: “The authorities under the Act are under an obligation to act in accordance with law. Tax can be collected only as provided under the Act. If an assessee, under a mistake, misconception or on not being properly instructed, is over-assessed, the authorities under the Act ar…

Reliance Life Scinces P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. Asst CIT RG 7(2), Mumbai

ITA 2301/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri N.K. Pradhan, Hon'Ble&

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Manish Kumar Singh
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…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.” Further reliance is placed by us on another judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court, in the case of, S.R. Koshti 276 ITR 165 (Guj) in which relief was granted to assessee with following observations: “The authorities under the Act are under an obligation to act in accordance with law. Tax can be collected only as provided under the Act. If an assessee, under a mistake, misconception or on not being properly instructed, is over-assessed, the authorities under the Act ar…

Sri Srinivasa Educational & Charitable Trust, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(1), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue and all the cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 709/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan, Vice Presidnet & Shri B.R Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri Prashanth G.S, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Pramod Kumar Singh, CIT (DR)
Section 11Section 11(2)(b)Section 11(5)Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)Section 132(4)

…nder the Act. If any assessee, under a mistake, misconceptions 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 (see S.R. Kosti v. CIT [2005] 276 ITR 165 (Guj.), CPA Yoosuf v. ITO[1970] 77 ITR 237 (Ker.), CIT v. Bharat General Reinsurance Co. Ltd. [1971] 81 ITR 303 (Delhi), CIT v. Archana R. Dhanwatey [1982] 136 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. ITA Nos.7…

Viksun Agro Industries Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 2044/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Viksun Agro Industries Vs. Dcit, Pvt. Ltd., Circle-26(1), C.R. Building, C-2/15, Prashant Vihar, New Delhi Delhi Pan :Aaacv3387N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Deepak Ostwal, Ca Respondent By Shri G. Johnson, Sr.Dr

Section 115Section 115JSection 194LSection 2Section 2(14)(iii)Section 56

…elhi High Court held that “the Tribunal had power to allow deduction for expenditure to assessee to which it was otherwise entitled even though no claim was made by the assessee in the return of income”. The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of SR Koshti 276 ITR 165 (Guj.) held that “if an assessee under a mistake, misconception or 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”. In the case of Pt. Sheo Nath Prasad Sharma versus CIT 66 ITR 647 (All), it is held that “it is the duty of the Assess…

M/S the Spunpipe & Construction Co. (Baroda) Pvt. Ltd., Baroda vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1) (1), Baroda

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2594/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Jul 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2594 & 2612/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri A. C. Shah, A.R
Section 14ASection 36(1)(va)

…is over assessed, the authorities under the Act are required to ensure that only legitimate tax dues are collected. This is the view which flows from innumerable judgments including CIT vs. Shelly Products (2003) 261 ITR 367 (SC), S. R. Koshti vs. CIT (2005) 276 ITR 165 (Guj), Ester Industries vs. CIT (2009) 185 TAXMAN 266 (Delhi) and CIT vs. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders (P.) Ltd. [2012] 349 ITR 336 (Bom). The essence of these decisions are that mere admission on the part of the assessee with respect to an addition/disallowance in its original return or in revised return would not ipso facto bar an assessee fr…

Mokama Munger Highway Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2146/HYD/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Jul 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri D.V. AnjaneyuluFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai, (CIT) DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

…sed, the authorities under the Act are required to assist him and ensure that only legitimate taxes dues are collected. While holding so, the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court has relied upon the various decisions e.g. Koshti vs. CIT (2005) 193 CTR (Guj) 518 : (2005) 276 ITR 165 (Guj), C.P.A. Yoosuf vs. ITO(1970) 77 ITR 237 (Ker.), CIT vs. Bharat General Reinsurance Co. Ltd. (1971) 81 ITR 303 (Del), CIT vs. Archana R. Dhanwatey (1981) 24 CTR (Bom) 142 : (1982) 136 ITR 355 (Bom)”. 11. The Coordinate Bench at Pune also referred to the decision of the Mumbai Bench and also considered the CBDT circular No.9/2014 dated 23.4.…

Mokama Munger Highway Limited, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-16(4), Hyderabad

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2145/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Jul 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri D.V. AnjaneyuluFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai, (CIT) DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

…sed, the authorities under the Act are required to assist him and ensure that only legitimate taxes dues are collected. While holding so, the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court has relied upon the various decisions e.g. Koshti vs. CIT (2005) 193 CTR (Guj) 518 : (2005) 276 ITR 165 (Guj), C.P.A. Yoosuf vs. ITO(1970) 77 ITR 237 (Ker.), CIT vs. Bharat General Reinsurance Co. Ltd. (1971) 81 ITR 303 (Del), CIT vs. Archana R. Dhanwatey (1981) 24 CTR (Bom) 142 : (1982) 136 ITR 355 (Bom)”. 11. The Coordinate Bench at Pune also referred to the decision of the Mumbai Bench and also considered the CBDT circular No.9/2014 dated 23.4.…

Mokama Munger Highway Limited, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1729/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Jul 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri D.V. AnjaneyuluFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai, (CIT) DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

…sed, the authorities under the Act are required to assist him and ensure that only legitimate taxes dues are collected. While holding so, the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court has relied upon the various decisions e.g. Koshti vs. CIT (2005) 193 CTR (Guj) 518 : (2005) 276 ITR 165 (Guj), C.P.A. Yoosuf vs. ITO(1970) 77 ITR 237 (Ker.), CIT vs. Bharat General Reinsurance Co. Ltd. (1971) 81 ITR 303 (Del), CIT vs. Archana R. Dhanwatey (1981) 24 CTR (Bom) 142 : (1982) 136 ITR 355 (Bom)”. 11. The Coordinate Bench at Pune also referred to the decision of the Mumbai Bench and also considered the CBDT circular No.9/2014 dated 23.4.…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Satvinder Singh Wadhawan, New Delhi

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal No

ITA 3081/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jun 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 269TSection 271Section 271DSection 271E

…ar Nath Shivraj (HUF) (2004) 1 SOT 346 (Agra) g) Sunflower Builders Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT (1997) 61 ITD 227 (Pune) h) CIT vs. Sunil Kumar Goyal (2009) 315 ITR 163 (P&H) i) Ramlal & Ors. Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. AIR 1962 SC 361 j) S. R. Koshti vs. CIT (2005) 276 ITR 165 (Guj.) k) CIT vs. Lokhpat Film Exchange (Cinema) (2008) 304 ITR 172 (Raj.) 7.1 In the following cases, the Ahmedabad Bench of the Hon'ble ITAT have also cancelled the penalties lev,ed u/s 271D even where loans/deposits were taken in cash. a) Shreenathji Corporation vs. ACIT 58 TTJ 611 b) Ganesh Wooden Industries ITA No.1626/Ahd./1997, Bench “…