Sanchit Software and Solutions (P) Ltd. v. CIT

349 ITR 404High Court2012#2053 most cited

What is Sanchit Software and Solutions (P) Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

A mistake in the income return where the assessee omitted to exclude certain income can be rectified by the Commissioner, and revision should not be denied based on such an omission.

56

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Sanchit Software & Solutions · CIT · rectification of return · omission to exclude income · dividend income · long term capital gains · section 10

Sections most often in play

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 143(1)Section 148Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 12AASection 143(2)

Issues it is cited on

section 147(1)bogus share capitalsection 80a(5)sanctioning authoritysection 80accorpus donationsection 80aborrowed satisfactionkelvinatormere change of opinionsection 34section 80p(4)

Judgments citing Sanchit Software and Solutions (P) Ltd. v. CIT

Shahaji Bhanudas Bhad, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 813/PUN/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Nov 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 813 To 818/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2012-13

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153A

…Circular No.14(XI-35) of 1955 dated 01-04-1955 states that the Officers of the Department must not take advantage of ignorance of the assessee as to his rights. The hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in Sanchit Software and Solutions (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT (2012) 349 ITR 404 (Bom.) has reiterated the position 15 Shahaji Bhanudas Bhad stated in the circular by holding that where an assessee offered certain income wrongly and thereafter realized that such income was not liable to be included in the total income, he was justified in filing application u/s. 264 seeking revision of the order. The Hon’ble Delhi High Co…

Auto Finance Enterprises, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 12(3), Mumbai

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 259/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.259/Mum/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Auto Finance Enterprises Acit-Circle 12(3) 1St Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, बनाम/ 41, Nariman Bhavan, 221, Nariman Point, M. K. Road Vs. Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai-400 020 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaafa-2325-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta & Shri GovindFor Respondent: Shri Satish Chandra Rajore - Ld. DR
Section 139(1)Section 139(3)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 45(2)Section 74(1)Section 80

…/s 154 since the revenue would not be justified to take advantage of inadvertent error when material, in that respect, was already available on record. 4.3 The Hon’ble Bombay High Court, in Writ Petition titled as Sanchit Software & Solutions P. Ltd. V/s CIT [349 ITR 404], after considering CBDT Circular No.14 (XL-35) dated 11/04/1955 observed as under: - 5. In any civilized system, the assessee is bound to pay the tax which he liable under the law to the Government. The Government on the other hand is obliged to collect only that amount of tax which is legally payable by an assessee. The entire object of adminis…

Smt. Birma Devi, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6-2, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms indicated

ITA 678/JPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Apr 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: The Hearing Of This Appeal.”

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar (Adv)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (CIT-DR)
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 54B

…g paragraphs it is submitted that the revenue cannot avail benefit on account of any mistake on the part of the assessee in filing return of income. The ld AR has relied on the following case laws: (i) Sanchit Software and Solutions Pvt. Ltd vs. CIT (2012) 349 ITR 404 (Mumbai High Court) In any civilized system, the assessee is bound to pay the tax which he liable under the law to the Government. The Government on the other hand is obliged to collect only that amount of tax which is legally payable by an assessee. The entire object of administration of tax is to secure the revenue for the development of the Co…

ITO, WD-43(3), Kolkata vs. Vipul Gupta, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 868/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Mar 2019AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 10ASection 10B

…ights and entitlements as per law and cannot take advantage of ignorance of assessee. In this regard, he cited the relevant extract of the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Sanchi Software & Solutions Pvt. Ltd Vs. CIT reported in (2012) 349 ITR 404 (Bom), wherein it was held as under:- “Income-tax Department cannot take advantage of the assessee’s mistakes in not claiming the exemption in the Income-tax Return and not deny him exemption. The entire object of administration of tax is to secure the revenue for the development of the country and not to charge the assessee more tax than that w…

ITO, Ward - 8(2), Kolkata vs. M/S. Wizard Enterprise Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 292/KOL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godaraassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 10ASection 10BSection 143(3)

…ights and entitlements as per law and cannot take advantage of ignorance of assessee. In this regard, he cited the relevant extract of the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Sanchi Software & Solutions Pvt. Ltd Vs. CIT reported in (2012) 349 ITR 404 (Bom), wherein it was held as under:- “Income-tax Department cannot take advantage of the assessee’s mistakes in not claiming the exemption in the Income-tax Return and not deny him exemption. The entire object of administration of tax is to secure the revenue for the development of the country and not to charge the assessee more tax than that wh…

Limtex Infotech Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 7(4), Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and cross objections of the assessee are allowed as stated above

ITA 1368/KOL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Sept 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1368/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Limtex Infotech Ltd. -Vs- Ito, Ward-7(4), Kolkata. [Pan: Aabcl 0088 R] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri J.M Thard, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Robin Chowdhury, Addl. CIT DR
Section 10BSection 14Section 143(3)

…ights and entitlements as per law and cannot take advantage of ignorance of assessee. In this regard, he cited the relevant extract of the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Sanchi Software & Solutions Pvt. Ltd Vs. CIT reported in (2012) 349 ITR 404 (Bom), wherein it was held as under:- “Income-tax Department cannot take advantage of the assessee’s mistakes in not claiming the exemption in the Income-tax Return and not deny him exemption. The entire object of administration of tax is to secure the revenue for the development of the country and not to charge the assessee more tax than that w…

Mr. Manoj Kumar Nayak, Bhubaneswar vs. DDIT, International Taxation, Bhubaneswar

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

ITA 389/CTK/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack17 May 2018AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri S.C.Bhadra, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, DR
Section 143(1)Section 154(2)

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, कटक न्यायपीठ,कटक IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI N.S.SAINI, AM & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM Manoj Kumar Nayak, Vs. JCIT(OSD), International Plot No.N-5/416, IRC Village, Taxation, Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar-751015 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ PAN/GIR No. : ADVPN 7849 L (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri S.C.Bhadra, AR िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri S.C.Mohanty, DR सुनवाई की तािीख / Date of Hearing : 19/04/2018 घोषणा की तािीख/Date of Pronouncement 17/05/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale,…

ACIT 21(2), Mumbai vs. Vivek Mehrotra, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6705/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2010-11 Vivek Mehrotra, Jt Cit 21(2), 7 Plot No.231, C-10 Bldg, 5Th Floor, बना Shri Nilayam Bldg., Pratyakshakar Bhavan, म/ Sion(E) Bkc, Bandra(E) Vs. Mumbai-400022 Mumbai-51 (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aahpm4127B Assessment Year: 2010-11 Jt Cit 21(2), Vivek Mehrotra, C-10 Bldg, 5Th Floor, 7 Plot No.231, बनाम/ Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Shri Nilayam Bldg., Sion(E) Vs. Bkc, Bandra(E) Mumbai-400022 Mumbai-51 (Revenue) (Respondent ) P.A. No. Aahpm4127B Assessee By Shri Nitesh Joshi & Rajiv Mehrotra (Ar) Revenue By Shri Ravinder Sindhu (Dr) सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing: 13/07/2016 10/08/2016 आदेश क" तार"ख /Date Of Order:

Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ,F,मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “F”, MUMBAI "ी अ"मत शु"ला, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी अ"वनी तनेजा, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Amit Shukla, Judicial Member, and Shri Ashwani Taneja, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2010-11 Vivek Mehrotra, JT CIT 21(2), 7 Plot No.231, C-10 Bldg, 5th Floor, बना Shri Nilayam Bldg., Pratyakshakar Bhavan, म/ Sion(E) BKC, Bandra(E) Vs. Mumbai-400022 Mumbai-51 (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.AAHPM4127B Assessment Year: 2010-11 JT CIT 21(2), Vivek Mehrotra, C-10 Bldg, 5th Floor, 7 Plot No.231, बनाम/ Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Shri…

Vivek Mehrotra, Mumbai vs. Jt CIT 21(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6383/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2010-11 Vivek Mehrotra, Jt Cit 21(2), 7 Plot No.231, C-10 Bldg, 5Th Floor, बना Shri Nilayam Bldg., Pratyakshakar Bhavan, म/ Sion(E) Bkc, Bandra(E) Vs. Mumbai-400022 Mumbai-51 (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aahpm4127B Assessment Year: 2010-11 Jt Cit 21(2), Vivek Mehrotra, C-10 Bldg, 5Th Floor, 7 Plot No.231, बनाम/ Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Shri Nilayam Bldg., Sion(E) Vs. Bkc, Bandra(E) Mumbai-400022 Mumbai-51 (Revenue) (Respondent ) P.A. No. Aahpm4127B Assessee By Shri Nitesh Joshi & Rajiv Mehrotra (Ar) Revenue By Shri Ravinder Sindhu (Dr) सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing: 13/07/2016 10/08/2016 आदेश क" तार"ख /Date Of Order:

Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ,F,मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “F”, MUMBAI "ी अ"मत शु"ला, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी अ"वनी तनेजा, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Amit Shukla, Judicial Member, and Shri Ashwani Taneja, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2010-11 Vivek Mehrotra, JT CIT 21(2), 7 Plot No.231, C-10 Bldg, 5th Floor, बना Shri Nilayam Bldg., Pratyakshakar Bhavan, म/ Sion(E) BKC, Bandra(E) Vs. Mumbai-400022 Mumbai-51 (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.AAHPM4127B Assessment Year: 2010-11 JT CIT 21(2), Vivek Mehrotra, C-10 Bldg, 5th Floor, 7 Plot No.231, बनाम/ Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Shri…

Dilip Dharmsey Khatau, Mumbai vs. ITO (It) 3(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 5386/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2010-11 Dilip Dharmsey Khatau, Ito 3(1)(1) 881/888, Atlanta, Scindia House, 1St बनाम/ 209, Nariman Point, Floor, Vs. Mumbai-400021 Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400038 (Assessee) (Revenue) P.A. No.Aabpk3729R "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Mrs. D.J. Jariwala (Ar) Mrs. Surbhi Sharma (Sr. राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By Dr)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 90

…atic India Ltd. Vs. Dy. CIT- (2007) 15 SOT 252(Mum.) iii. CIT vs. M/s. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders Pvt. Ltd. 349 ITR 336 iv. Hathway Rajesh Multi Channel vs. Department of Income Tax in ITA No. 6345/M/2013 v. Sanchit software and Solution (P.) Ltd. V. CIT- 349 ITR 404 (Bom) vi. S.R. Koshti vs. CIT- 276 ITR 165(Guj) 3.3. Before concluding her arguments, Ld. Counsel of the assessee also submitted that in all subsequent years the assessee had claimed the relief as per DTAA and which has been allowed consistently for all of the assessment years viz. 6 Dilip Dharamsey Khatau A.Ys. 2011-12 to 2015-16. Out of thes…

Nirvana Business Solutions Private Limited, Bangalore vs. ITO, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 265/BANG/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jun 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri Anand Murthy, B.NFor Respondent: Shri P. Chandrashekar, CIT
Section 1OSection 92C

…on of India clearly provides that no tax shall be 13 IT(TP)A No.265(B)2011 levied or collected except by authority of law. Similar view has been taken recently by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in Sancheti Software and Solutions P. Ltd. VS. CIT (2012) 349 ITR 404 (Bom). In our considered opinion there can be no escape from the proposition that the assessee is entitled to argue at least before the appellate authorities that a wrong stand taken at the time of filing the return of income should be allowed to be modified. The ld. AR has rightly relied on order passed by the Mumbai bench of the Tribunal in the…

I.T.O WD - 7(2), Kolkata. vs. M/S Wizard Enterprises Pvt Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 280/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Apr 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: : Shri S.S Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel, JCIT, ld.DR
Section 10ASection 10BSection 143(3)

…IN THE INCME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, “A” BENCH, KOLKATA Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member, and Before : Shri S.S Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member, I.T.A No. 280/Kol/2013 A.Y. 2009-10 I.T.O Ward 7(2), Kolkata Vs. M/s. Wizard Enterprises P.Ltd PAN: AAACW2606B (Appellant) (Respondent) For the Appellant/department : Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel, JCIT, ld.DR For the Respondent/assessee: Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate, ld.AR Date of Hearing: 28-04-2016 Date of Pronouncement: 29- 04-2015 ORDER SHRI S.S VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM The appeal of the revenue is arising out of the order of the Learned CIT(A)- VIII,…

ITO, Ward - 7(2), Kolkata vs. M/S. Wizard Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and cross objections of the assessee are allowed as stated above

ITA 628/KOL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Mar 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: : Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate, ld.ARFor Respondent: None appeared on behalf of the revenue
Section 10ASection 10BSection 143(3)

…ights and entitlements as per law and cannot take advantage of ignorance of assessee. In this regard, he cited the relevant extract of the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Sanchi Software & Solutions Pvt. Ltd Vs. CIT reported in (2012) 349 ITR 404 (Bom), wherein it was held as under:- “Income-tax Department cannot take advantage of the assessee’s mistakes in not claiming the exemption in the Income-tax Return and not deny him exemption. The entire object of administration of tax is to secure the revenue for the development of the country and not to charge the assessee more tax than that wh…

Mahipatrai Prabhudas Shah Family Trust, Mumbai vs. ACIT (CPC)), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 4215/MUM/2014[2010--11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2015

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia ,Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.4214 & 4215/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10 &2010-11 )

For Respondent: Shri B.S.Bist
Section 154Section 2Section 2(14)

…ed in the case of CIT Vs. Kuruvilla Abraham as reported in 88 DTR 291 (Madras). He also placed reliance on following judgments of Hon’ble Bombay High Court:- a) Indian Del. P. Ltd. vs. CIT, 349 ITR 330 (Bom) b) Sanchit Software and Solutions P. Ltd. vs. CIT, 349 ITR 404 (Bom). 2. As against this, the ld. DR of the revenue supported the order of CIT(A). 3. I have considered the rival submissions. I find that in the present case, the assessee offered Short Term Capital Gain to tax totaling of Rs.5,59,611/- including an amount of Rs.2.75 lakhs being short term capital gain on account of sale of painting at tax ra…

Mahipatrai Prabhudas Shah Family Trust, Mumbai vs. ACIT (CPC)), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 4214/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia ,Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.4214 & 4215/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10 &2010-11 )

For Respondent: Shri B.S.Bist
Section 154Section 2Section 2(14)

…ed in the case of CIT Vs. Kuruvilla Abraham as reported in 88 DTR 291 (Madras). He also placed reliance on following judgments of Hon’ble Bombay High Court:- a) Indian Del. P. Ltd. vs. CIT, 349 ITR 330 (Bom) b) Sanchit Software and Solutions P. Ltd. vs. CIT, 349 ITR 404 (Bom). 2. As against this, the ld. DR of the revenue supported the order of CIT(A). 3. I have considered the rival submissions. I find that in the present case, the assessee offered Short Term Capital Gain to tax totaling of Rs.5,59,611/- including an amount of Rs.2.75 lakhs being short term capital gain on account of sale of painting at tax ra…

Capt S.K.Khurana, Mumbai vs. ITO 12(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 7047/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia ,Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.7047/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08)

Section 154Section 2Section 2(14)

…ed in the case of CIT Vs. Kuruvilla Abraham as reported in 88 DTR 291 (Madras). He also placed reliance on following judgments of Hon’ble Bombay High Court:- a) Indian Del. P. Ltd. vs. CIT, 349 ITR 330 (Bom) b) Sanchit Software and Solutions P. Ltd. vs. CIT, 349 ITR 404 (Bom). 2. As against this, the ld. DR of the revenue supported the order of CIT(A). 3. I have considered the rival submissions. I find that in the present case, the assessee offered Short Term Capital Gain to tax totaling of Rs.5,59,611/- including an amount of Rs.2.75 lakhs being short term capital gain on account of sale of painting at tax ra…