SAIL DSP VR. EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION 1998 v. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS

262 ITR 638High Court2003#3224 most cited

What is SAIL DSP VR. EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION 1998 v. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS authority for?

An assessee's admission or waiver cannot make an otherwise non-taxable income taxable; chargeability depends strictly on the charging section of the law.

37

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2023.

Also referred to as

SAIL DSP VR Employees Association · admission of income · waiver of right · chargeability of income · charging section · taxable in law · misconception of law

Judgments citing SAIL DSP VR. EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION 1998 v. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS

DCIT, CC-VIII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI SHYAM SUNDAR PATODIA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1248/KOL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Aug 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalit(Ss)A No.111/Kol/2014 Assessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D. Shah, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234ASection 292CSection 40A(3)

…date of the law. It is always open to an assessee to take the plea that the figure, though shown in his return of total income, is not taxable in law”. He also placed reliance on the decision of Sail DSP VR Employees Association 1998 Vs. Union of India (2003) 262 ITR 638 (Cal) wherein it was held that “what is 15 IT(SS)A No.111/Kol/2014, ITA No. 1247/Kol/2014, IT(SS)A No. 112/Kol/2014 & Shyam Sundar Patodia, AYs: 2008-09 & 2010-11 not otherwise taxable cannot become taxable because of admission of the assessee nor there can be any waiver of the right otherwise admissible to the assessee in law. Chargeability is…

DCIT, CC-VIII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI SHYAM SUNDAR PATODIA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1247/KOL/2014[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Aug 2023AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalit(Ss)A No.111/Kol/2014 Assessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D. Shah, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234ASection 292CSection 40A(3)

…date of the law. It is always open to an assessee to take the plea that the figure, though shown in his return of total income, is not taxable in law”. He also placed reliance on the decision of Sail DSP VR Employees Association 1998 Vs. Union of India (2003) 262 ITR 638 (Cal) wherein it was held that “what is 15 IT(SS)A No.111/Kol/2014, ITA No. 1247/Kol/2014, IT(SS)A No. 112/Kol/2014 & Shyam Sundar Patodia, AYs: 2008-09 & 2010-11 not otherwise taxable cannot become taxable because of admission of the assessee nor there can be any waiver of the right otherwise admissible to the assessee in law. Chargeability is…

M/S. RELIGARE ENTERPRISE LTD.,NOIDA vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 5116/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 May 2023AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Princy Singla, Sr. DR
Section 10(34)Section 14ASection 37

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘F’ : NEW DELHI) SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.5116/Del./2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12) M/s. Religare Enterprise Limited, vs. DCIT, Circle 15 (1), D3, P3B, District Centre, Saket, (now DCIT, Circle 21(1)), New Delhi – 110 017. New Delhi. (PAN : AAACV5888N) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate REVENUE BY : Ms. Princy Singla, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 04.05.2023 Date of Order : 10.05.2023 ORDER PER SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : This appeal filed by the assessee is arising out…

MANGI LAL KANDOI ,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE – 2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

ITA 321/JPR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Oct 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar ( Adv.)For Respondent: Ms. Runi Pal (Addl.CIT)a
Section 127Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…he assessee in law. The chargeability of income is not dependent on the admission of or waiver by the assessee. Chargeability is dependent on the charging section of the Income Tax Act which needs to the strictly construed and followed. CIT vs. Bhaskar Mittar 262 ITR 638 (Kol) Mangi Lal Kandoi vs. ACIT The position of law being so no addition could have been made in the hands of the assessee. But since the assessee has accepted, therefore the addition was made in his hand and finally sustained. The learned AO has initiated the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) in the assessment order by mentioning that “the assessee has con…

MANGI LAL KANDOI ,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE – 2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

ITA 320/JPR/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Oct 2022AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar ( Adv.)For Respondent: Ms. Runi Pal (Addl.CIT)a
Section 127Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…he assessee in law. The chargeability of income is not dependent on the admission of or waiver by the assessee. Chargeability is dependent on the charging section of the Income Tax Act which needs to the strictly construed and followed. CIT vs. Bhaskar Mittar 262 ITR 638 (Kol) Mangi Lal Kandoi vs. ACIT The position of law being so no addition could have been made in the hands of the assessee. But since the assessee has accepted, therefore the addition was made in his hand and finally sustained. The learned AO has initiated the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) in the assessment order by mentioning that “the assessee has con…

MANGI LAL KANDOI ,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE – 2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

ITA 319/JPR/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Oct 2022AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar ( Adv.)For Respondent: Ms. Runi Pal (Addl.CIT)a
Section 127Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…he assessee in law. The chargeability of income is not dependent on the admission of or waiver by the assessee. Chargeability is dependent on the charging section of the Income Tax Act which needs to the strictly construed and followed. CIT vs. Bhaskar Mittar 262 ITR 638 (Kol) Mangi Lal Kandoi vs. ACIT The position of law being so no addition could have been made in the hands of the assessee. But since the assessee has accepted, therefore the addition was made in his hand and finally sustained. The learned AO has initiated the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) in the assessment order by mentioning that “the assessee has con…

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)

…16 (A.Y: 2011-12) M/s. Sumer Builders understanding and such erroneous offer could not lead to taxing the same. Ld. Counsel relied on Abdul Qayumme v. CIT [184 ITR 404 (All)], Mayank Poddar v. ITO [262 ITR 633 (Cal)] and SAIL DSP Employees Association v. UOI [262 ITR 638 (Cal)], to urge that any amount of admission or misapprehension could not make an item taxable which is otherwise not taxable. 53. Ld. Counsel for the assessee further referring to Page No.3, Para 4 of the Assessment order stated that, even as per the Assessing Officer on-money has been treated as merely receipt and part of sale consideration an…

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)

…16 (A.Y: 2011-12) M/s. Sumer Builders understanding and such erroneous offer could not lead to taxing the same. Ld. Counsel relied on Abdul Qayumme v. CIT [184 ITR 404 (All)], Mayank Poddar v. ITO [262 ITR 633 (Cal)] and SAIL DSP Employees Association v. UOI [262 ITR 638 (Cal)], to urge that any amount of admission or misapprehension could not make an item taxable which is otherwise not taxable. 53. Ld. Counsel for the assessee further referring to Page No.3, Para 4 of the Assessment order stated that, even as per the Assessing Officer on-money has been treated as merely receipt and part of sale consideration an…

DCIT - CC- 6 (3), MUMBAI vs. SHRI MANOJ M. DESAI, MUMBAI

In the result the revenues appeal stands dismissed

ITA 6301/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Dec 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Making Addition, Despite The Fact That - A) The Assessee Has Never Made Any Request For Cross Examination During Assessment Proceeding & Thus Question Of Providing Of Opportunity Of Cross Examination Does Not Arise. B) Ld. Cit (A) Has Herself Mentioned That Shri Praveen Mishra Retracted His Statement Thereby Making Him Assessee'S Witness & Hence No Opportunity Of His Cross Examination Was Required Rather It Was Assessee'S Onus To Produce Him Before The Ao For Cross Examination.

Section 132Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 69

…tion of assessment as held in various judicial pronouncements [Ref. Absalom v/s Talbot (1944) 26 Tax Cases 166, Abdul Qayumme v/s CIT- (1990) 184 ITR 404 (All), Mayank Poddar v/s. ITO - (2003) 262 ITR 633 (Cal), SAIL DSP Employees Association v/s UOI - (2003) 262 ITR 638 (Calutta). As evident, the addition made by the the Assessing Officer is simply based on the statement of some third party who later retracted his statement. Even this action of the Ld. AO is a seriously questionable since, it is a far too settled proposition of law that no addition can be made on the basis of a statement made by third party agai…

THE THANE ZILLA MADHYAMIK SHIKSHAK SANGH SAHAKARI PATPEDHI MARYADIT,THANE vs. ACIT PALGHAR CIRCLE, PALGHAR, THANE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 4296/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Dec 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 80P(2)(a)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (VIRTUAL COURT), ‘D‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI M.BALAGANESH, AM & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM ITA No.403/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year :2014-15) ITA No.4297/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year :2010-11) & The Thane Zilla Madhyamik Vs. ACIT Palghar Circle Shikshak Sangh Sahakari Palghar Parpedhi Maryadit At. Saphale Post Umbarpada, Taluka Palghar, Dist: Thane-401102 PAN/GIR No.AAAAT9514H (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Vijay Mehta Revenue by Shri O.P. Meena Date of Hearing 05/10/2020 Date of Pronouncement 03/12 /2020 आदेश / O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH (A.M): ITA No.4296/Mum/2016…

DCIT, CIRCLE - 3(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. DOZCO INFRATECH PVT. LIMITED , KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1438/KOL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Oct 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godaraassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 14ASection 154

…आयकर अपील"य अधीकरण, "यायपीठ – “A” कोलकाता, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH “VIRTUAL COURT A” KOLKATA Before Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Accountant Member and Shri S.S.Godara, Judicial Member Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dy. Commissioner of M/s Dozco Infratech Pvt. बनाम Ltd., 6, Waterloo Street, 3rd Income Tax, Circle-3(1), / Aaykar Bhawan, 4th Floor, V/s. Floor, Kolkata-69 Room No. 19, Kolkta-69 [PAN No.AACCD 3819 M] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Shri Dhrubajyoti Ray, JCIT-SR-DR अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri A.K.Tibrewal, FCA ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 01-10-2020 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Dat…

D.C.I.T.,CC-3(3), KOLKATA vs. SHRI LOKNATH PRASAD GUPTA, TITAGAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 162/KOL/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Aug 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

Section 139Section 143(2)Section 147Section 153ASection 154

…ance from the various judicial pronouncements”. 4. In support of the above contentions, reliance was placed on behalf of the assessee on the following judicial pronouncements:- (i) SAIL, DSP –vs.- Employees Association (1998)-vs.- Union of India & Ors [2003] 262 ITR 638 (Cal.); (ii) In Maynak Poddar (HUF) –vs.- Wealth Tax Officer [2003] 262 ITR 633 (Cal.) (iii) CIT –vs.- Bhaskar Mitter (1994) 73 Taxman 437 (Cal.); (iv) DCIT –vs.- Sanmukhdas Wadhwani (2003) 85 ITD 734 (Nag.). 5. The ld. CIT(Appeals) found merit in the contentions raised on behalf of the assessee and allowed the claim of the assessee for deduc…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S RELIGARE SECURITIES LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessees is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 574/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2011-12 Religare Securities Ltd., Vs Dcit, 6Th Floor, Prius Global, Circle-21(1), A-3, 4, 5, Plot No.11, Sector-125, Cr Building, Noida. New Delhi. Pan: Aaacf1952D Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit, Vs Religare Securities Ltd., Circle-21(1), . D-3, P-3B, District Centre, Cr Building, Saket, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaacf1952D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate & Ms Tejasvi Jain, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.06.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2020 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: These Are Cross Appeals. The First One Is Filed By The Assessee & The Second One Is Filed By The Revenue & Are Directed Against The Order Dated 11.11.2016 Of The Cit(A)-7, New Delhi, For A.Y. 2011-12. Itas No.230 & 574/Del/2017

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 14ASection 37(1)

…d it was always open to the assessee to resile from the decision taken under misconception of law:- i) NTPC Ltd. vs. CIT, 229, ITR 383 (SC); ii) CIT vs. Bharat General Reinsurance Co. Ltd., 81 ITR 303 (Del); iii) SAIL DSP VR Employees Association 1998 V. UOI, 262 ITR 638 (Cal); iv) Pt. Sheo Nath Prasad Sharma vs. CIT, 66 ITR 647 (All); and v) Indo Java & Co. vs. ITO, 30 ITD 161 (Del, SB). ITAs No.230 & 574/Del/2017 12. He accordingly, submitted that the assessee can notwithstanding suo motu disallowance at a higher amount, raise ground seeking correct computation of disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. Referring to…

M/S. RELIGARE ENTERPRISE LTD.,NOIDA vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessees is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 230/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2011-12 Religare Securities Ltd., Vs Dcit, 6Th Floor, Prius Global, Circle-21(1), A-3, 4, 5, Plot No.11, Sector-125, Cr Building, Noida. New Delhi. Pan: Aaacf1952D Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit, Vs Religare Securities Ltd., Circle-21(1), . D-3, P-3B, District Centre, Cr Building, Saket, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaacf1952D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate & Ms Tejasvi Jain, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.06.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2020 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: These Are Cross Appeals. The First One Is Filed By The Assessee & The Second One Is Filed By The Revenue & Are Directed Against The Order Dated 11.11.2016 Of The Cit(A)-7, New Delhi, For A.Y. 2011-12. Itas No.230 & 574/Del/2017

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 14ASection 37(1)

…d it was always open to the assessee to resile from the decision taken under misconception of law:- i) NTPC Ltd. vs. CIT, 229, ITR 383 (SC); ii) CIT vs. Bharat General Reinsurance Co. Ltd., 81 ITR 303 (Del); iii) SAIL DSP VR Employees Association 1998 V. UOI, 262 ITR 638 (Cal); iv) Pt. Sheo Nath Prasad Sharma vs. CIT, 66 ITR 647 (All); and v) Indo Java & Co. vs. ITO, 30 ITD 161 (Del, SB). ITAs No.230 & 574/Del/2017 12. He accordingly, submitted that the assessee can notwithstanding suo motu disallowance at a higher amount, raise ground seeking correct computation of disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. Referring to…

ACIT, CIR-2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S TCG FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PVT LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1648/KOL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1631/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2010-11)

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tibrewal, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Shankar Halder, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C”, BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI A.T.VARKEY, JM &DR. A.L.SAINI, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.1631/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2010-11) TCG Facilities Management Vs. ACIT, CC-2(2), Kolkata Services Pvt. Ltd. Ground Floor, Building Beta, Bengal Intelligent Park, Block EP & GP, Sector-V, Salt Lake Electronics Complex, Kolkata-700091 (W.B.) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AABCB 2810 R (Assessee) .. (Revenue) आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.1648/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2010-11) ACIT, CC-2(2), Kolkata Vs. TCG Facilities Management Services Pvt. Ltd. Ground Floor, Build…

TCG FACILITIES MANAGEMENT SERVICES PVT LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1631/KOL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1631/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2010-11)

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tibrewal, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Shankar Halder, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C”, BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI A.T.VARKEY, JM &DR. A.L.SAINI, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.1631/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2010-11) TCG Facilities Management Vs. ACIT, CC-2(2), Kolkata Services Pvt. Ltd. Ground Floor, Building Beta, Bengal Intelligent Park, Block EP & GP, Sector-V, Salt Lake Electronics Complex, Kolkata-700091 (W.B.) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AABCB 2810 R (Assessee) .. (Revenue) आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.1648/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2010-11) ACIT, CC-2(2), Kolkata Vs. TCG Facilities Management Services Pvt. Ltd. Ground Floor, Build…

ORICON ENTERPRISES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CEN CIR 3(3), MUMBAI

ITA 2913/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: S/Sh. Rajendra & Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Arvind SondeFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Swamy-CIT-DR
Section 14Section 148Section 254(1)Section 36(1)(v)Section 40A(7)Section 43Section 43B

…ier years, the assessee had offered to pay tax u/s.44BB cannot operate as estopple against it.” 5.5.e.We would also like to refer to the judgment of the Hon' ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Sail DSP VR Employees Association 1998 v.Union of India [2003] 262 ITR 638. The petitioners who were employees of SAIL were subjected to voluntary retirement. SAIL had been deducting tax at source on the amount paid under their voluntary retirement scheme. On a writ petition against this the Hon’ble Court held as under: “The question of estopple,because of option exercised with eyes open to the subsequent modification,c…

M/S RYDAK SYNDICATE LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-4, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 305/KOL/2016[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jan 2018AY 2012-2013

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A Nos. 301-302 & 304-305/Kol/2016 Assessment Years : 1993-94,2001-02,2011-12 &2012-13 M/S Rydak Syndicate Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Spl.Rg-2, Kolkata [Pan: Aabcr 2656 P] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Soumyajit Dasgupta, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)

…there is no estoppel against the statute and reliance in this regard has been rightly placed by the ld AR on the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of SAIL DSP VR Employees Association 1998 vs Union of India & Ors reported in (2003) 262 ITR 638 (Cal), wherein it was held that :- The question of estoppel because of option exercised with eyes open to the subsequent modification cannot be sustained. What is not otherwise taxable cannot become taxable because of admission of the assessee. Nor there can be any waiver of the right otherwise admissible to the assessee in law. The chargeability…

M/S RYDAK SYNDICATE LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-4, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 304/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jan 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A Nos. 301-302 & 304-305/Kol/2016 Assessment Years : 1993-94,2001-02,2011-12 &2012-13 M/S Rydak Syndicate Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Spl.Rg-2, Kolkata [Pan: Aabcr 2656 P] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Soumyajit Dasgupta, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)

…there is no estoppel against the statute and reliance in this regard has been rightly placed by the ld AR on the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of SAIL DSP VR Employees Association 1998 vs Union of India & Ors reported in (2003) 262 ITR 638 (Cal), wherein it was held that :- The question of estoppel because of option exercised with eyes open to the subsequent modification cannot be sustained. What is not otherwise taxable cannot become taxable because of admission of the assessee. Nor there can be any waiver of the right otherwise admissible to the assessee in law. The chargeability…

M/S RYDAK SYNDICATE LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, SPL. RG-2, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 302/KOL/2016[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jan 2018AY 2001-2002

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A Nos. 301-302 & 304-305/Kol/2016 Assessment Years : 1993-94,2001-02,2011-12 &2012-13 M/S Rydak Syndicate Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Spl.Rg-2, Kolkata [Pan: Aabcr 2656 P] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Soumyajit Dasgupta, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)

…there is no estoppel against the statute and reliance in this regard has been rightly placed by the ld AR on the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of SAIL DSP VR Employees Association 1998 vs Union of India & Ors reported in (2003) 262 ITR 638 (Cal), wherein it was held that :- The question of estoppel because of option exercised with eyes open to the subsequent modification cannot be sustained. What is not otherwise taxable cannot become taxable because of admission of the assessee. Nor there can be any waiver of the right otherwise admissible to the assessee in law. The chargeability…

Showing 1–20 of 37 · Page 1 of 2

SAIL DSP VR. EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION 1998 v. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS (262 ITR 638) — Cited in 37 Judgments | BharatTax