SAIL DSP VR. EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION 1998 v. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS (262 ITR 638)

Q: 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.

Q: How many judgments cite SAIL DSP VR. EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION 1998 v. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS?

37 judgments on BharatTax cite SAIL DSP VR. EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION 1998 v. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS (262 ITR 638), spanning 2015 to 2023.

M/S Rydak Syndicate Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Spl. RG-2, Kolkata

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

ITA 301/KOL/2016[1993-94]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jan 2018AY 1993-94

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…

ACIT, Bangalore vs. Shri. Dilip Ranjrekar, Bangalore

ITA 858/BANG/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Nov 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boazthe Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle-1(2)(1), Bengaluru. . Appellant Vs. Shri Dilip Ranjrekar, No.6B, Nitesh Mayfair, 31, Kasturba Road Cross, Bengaluru. . Respondent Pan No. – Aanpr4015M.

For Appellant: Shri H.N Khincha, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Padmameenakshi, JCIT

Section 10(12)Section 143(3)Section 54

…aw relating thereto and not on the view which the assessee might take of his rights nor can the existence or absence of entries in the books of account be decisive or conclusive in the matter. f) Sail DSP YR Employees Association 1998 v. Union of India [20031 262 ITR 638 (Cal) - SLP dismissed on 27.02.2004 1266 ITR (St.) 109], it was held as under: What is not otherwise taxable cannot become taxable because of admission of the assessee. Nor can there be any waiver of the right otherwise admissible to the assessee in law. The chargeability is not dependent on the admission of or waiver, by the assessee. Chargeabil…

Aradhya Steel Wires Pvt Ltd., Davangere vs. DCIT, Davangere

ITA 1200/BANG/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boazthe Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle-1(2)(1), Bengaluru. . Appellant Vs. Shri Dilip Ranjrekar, No.6B, Nitesh Mayfair, 31, Kasturba Road Cross, Bengaluru. . Respondent Pan No. – Aanpr4015M.

For Appellant: Shri H.N Khincha, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Padmameenakshi, JCIT

Section 10(12)Section 143(3)Section 54

…aw relating thereto and not on the view which the assessee might take of his rights nor can the existence or absence of entries in the books of account be decisive or conclusive in the matter. f) Sail DSP YR Employees Association 1998 v. Union of India [20031 262 ITR 638 (Cal) - SLP dismissed on 27.02.2004 1266 ITR (St.) 109], it was held as under: What is not otherwise taxable cannot become taxable because of admission of the assessee. Nor can there be any waiver of the right otherwise admissible to the assessee in law. The chargeability is not dependent on the admission of or waiver, by the assessee. Chargeabil…

Sh. Ranjeet Singh Khurana, New Delhi vs. CIT, New Delhi

The appeal is allowed

ITA 2628/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Aug 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu Assessment Year: 2007-08 Ranjeet Singh Khurana, Vs. Cit, C/O. Rattan Lal & Associates, Ca, Delhi-Xv, 109-Wing-1, Hans Bhawan, New Delhi. 1-Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi. (Pan: Aghpk6075E) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Kapil Goel, Adv. Department By: Shri N.C. Swain, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 14 .07.2016 Date Of Pronouncement: 16:08.2016 Order Per I.C. Sudhir:The Assessee Has Questioned Revisional Order Passed By Learned Cit On The Following Grounds: 1. That The Learned Cit-Xv, New Delhi Has Erred In Law & Facts Of The Case In Passing The Order Dated 03.03.2011 Under Sec. 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961. The Order Of Assessment Made Under Sec. 143(3) Dated 16.10.2008 At Income Of Rs.1,17,391 Was Not Erroneous Order, Therefore, The Action Of The Learned Cit-Xv, New Delhi Under Sec. 263 Is Uncalled For & The Order Passed U/S. 263 Deserved To Be Cancelled. 2. That The Learned Cit-Xv, New Delhi Has Wrongly & Illegally Directed The Assessing Officer To Make Addition Of Rs.5,00,000 In 2 The Income Of The Assessee By Not Allowing Exemption Of Rs.5,00,000 Under Sec. 10(10C) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 Which Was Righty Allowed By The Assessing Officer In His Order Dated 16.10.2008 Passed Under Sec. 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961. 2. Heard & Considered The Arguments Advanced By The Parties In View Of Orders Of The Authorities Below, Material Available On Record & The Decisions Relied Upon.

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Shri N.C. Swain, CIT(DR)

Section 10Section 143(3)Section 263

…hat if two views are possible while interacting the provisions, a view which is favourable to the assessee has to be adopted. He submitted that the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of SAIL DSP (V.R employees Association 1998 vs. Union of India (2003) – 262 ITR 638 (Cal.) has been pleased to hold that the provisions of sec. 10(10c) are t o be interprettred liberally in a manner which is beneficial to retired employee. He placed reliance of the following decisions: i) CIT Sourastra Cement Ltd. (2010) – 325 ITR 422 (SC); ii) Anunbhai R. Naik vs. ITO, /tax appeal No. 23 of 2004- judgment dated 12.10.2015 (Hon'…