Seshammal v. ITO

237 ITR 185High Court1999#9567 most cited

What is Seshammal v. ITO authority for?

The Income Tax Act is not intended to enable the state to collect or retain monies not properly payable to it. The tax authorities are required to collect only that which is properly payable by the assessee under the Act.

11

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,315 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Seshammal v. ITO · section 237 · section 265 · refund · tax payable · unconstitutional collection · amount not payable · excess collection · treasury

Sections most often in play

Section 139Section 239Section 10(34)Section 115-OSection 119Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 237

Issues it is cited on

section 239section 2(43)section 237domestic companyaccumulated profitsddtsection 90(2)dividend distribution taxsection 10(34)section 139(4)beneficial ownersection 119

Judgments citing Seshammal v. ITO

Bada Saab Properties Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 4(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 4449/MUM/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2026AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm M/S. Badasaab Properties Pvt. Ltd., Deputy Commissioner Of Income 501 Krystal, 206 Waterfield Road, Tax, Bandra (West) Vs. Circle – 4(1)(1), Maharashtra – 400 050 Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai Pan: Aaacb1642A (Appellant) (Respondent) :

For Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. AR
Section 115BSection 115JSection 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250

…be condoned and that the provision of section 119(2)(b) of the Act are intended to solve the grievances and hardship caused to the assessee which in fact had relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of R. Seshammal v. ITO [1999] 237 ITR 185 (Madras) according to which the Board is vested with powers to render justice in circumstances of limitations, where the Board has arbitrarily rejected the assessee’s request for refund. This emphasizes that the Courts have taken a liberal view in condoning the delay in filing Form 10-IC by avoiding rejection of the claim on mere technicalities…

Mitsui Kinzoku Components Pvt Ltd, Rewari vs. Income Tax Officer, ITO Ward Two

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3912/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 115Section 143(3)Section 237Section 239

…no tax shall be levied or collected except by authority of law... ...Nor could the claim of assessee be refused on technical ground that his application for refund was not on a given prescribed form." d) Madras High Court in case of R. Seshammal v. ITO [1999] 237 ITR 185 (MAD.) (Refer Pg 223 to Pg 224 of PB), held that "The Act is not intended to benefit the state by enabling it to collect or retain monies not payable to it under the Act. What is required to be collected from the assessee is only the tax and other amounts properly payable under the Act." e) High Court of Madras in case of Gopalan Thygarajan v. Co…

Mitsui Kinzoku Components Pvt Ltd, Rewari vs. Income Tax Officer, ITO Ward Two

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3911/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 115Section 143(3)Section 237Section 239

…no tax shall be levied or collected except by authority of law... ...Nor could the claim of assessee be refused on technical ground that his application for refund was not on a given prescribed form." d) Madras High Court in case of R. Seshammal v. ITO [1999] 237 ITR 185 (MAD.) (Refer Pg 223 to Pg 224 of PB), held that "The Act is not intended to benefit the state by enabling it to collect or retain monies not payable to it under the Act. What is required to be collected from the assessee is only the tax and other amounts properly payable under the Act." e) High Court of Madras in case of Gopalan Thygarajan v. Co…

Mitsui Kinzoku Components India Pvt Ltd, Rewari vs. Income Tax Officer, ITO Ward Two

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3910/DEL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 115Section 143(3)Section 237Section 239

…no tax shall be levied or collected except by authority of law... ...Nor could the claim of assessee be refused on technical ground that his application for refund was not on a given prescribed form." d) Madras High Court in case of R. Seshammal v. ITO [1999] 237 ITR 185 (MAD.) (Refer Pg 223 to Pg 224 of PB), held that "The Act is not intended to benefit the state by enabling it to collect or retain monies not payable to it under the Act. What is required to be collected from the assessee is only the tax and other amounts properly payable under the Act." e) High Court of Madras in case of Gopalan Thygarajan v. Co…

Keller (M) Sdn Bhd, Chennai vs. DCIT Intl Tax 1(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1319/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1319/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-2019) Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Keller (M) Sdn Bhd, Income Tax, 7Th Floor, Centennial Square, International Taxation 1(2) No.6A, Dr. Ambedkar Road, Chennai. Kodambakkam, Chennai 600 024. [Pan: Aagck 8014M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. Ashik Shah, C.A. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Irs, Cit.

For Appellant: Shri. Ashik Shah, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Nilay Baran Som, IRS, CIT
Section 133(6)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154Section 239Section 263

…India Pvt. ITAT-Chennai ITA No. 117 Ltd. 684/CHNY/2023 B. Refund cannot be denied merely on account of non-furnishing of the return Sl.No Name of the case Forum Citation Page No. 14 Tata Chemicals Ltd. Supreme Court 363 ITR 658 126 15 R. Seshammal HC-Madras 237 ITR 185 136 16 Vali Brothers HC- Allahad 282 ITR 149 138 17 A. Balakrishnan HC-Karnataka 290 ITR 227 141 18 Daljit Singh Pyare Lal & HC-P & H 269 ITR 19 146 Co. 19 Karnataka State Co- HC-Karnataka 130 taxmann.com 114 149 operative Apex Bank Ltd. 20 C. Kishan Rao & Co. ITAT 3 ITD 474 155 Hyderabad The ld.Counsel further submitted that the issue which is s…

DCIT, Circle-2(2), New Delhi vs. Anant Raj Ltd., New Delhi

The appeal is allowed partly as indicated above

ITA 5238/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Goel, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, CA; Ms
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 50

…undernoted authorities: a) The Constitutional Bench decision of 9 Judges of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mafatlal Industries versus Union of India, (1997) 5 SCC 536 / (2002-TIOL-54-SC- CX) b) CIT Vs Shelly Products [2003] 261 ITR 367 (SC) c) R. Seshammal Vs ITO 237 ITR 185 (Madras) d) Sudhir Sareen v CIT 239 ITR 440 Delhi e) DCIT vs Lab India Instruments (P) Ltd., 93 ITD 120ITAT-PUNE f) Lustre Tiles Ltd. Vs ACIT 2007-TIOL-132-ITAT-JAIPUR g) Smt. Sneh Lata Jain v CIT [2004] 140 Taxman 156 J&K High Court 31 I.T.As. No.4736, 5237 & 5238/DEL/2017 h) Sunflag Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. LTD 2016-TIOL-2729-HC- MUM-IT i) Tiam…

DCIT, Circle-2(2), New Delhi vs. Anant Raj Ltd., New Delhi

The appeal is allowed partly as indicated above

ITA 5237/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Goel, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, CA; Ms
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 50

…undernoted authorities: a) The Constitutional Bench decision of 9 Judges of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mafatlal Industries versus Union of India, (1997) 5 SCC 536 / (2002-TIOL-54-SC- CX) b) CIT Vs Shelly Products [2003] 261 ITR 367 (SC) c) R. Seshammal Vs ITO 237 ITR 185 (Madras) d) Sudhir Sareen v CIT 239 ITR 440 Delhi e) DCIT vs Lab India Instruments (P) Ltd., 93 ITD 120ITAT-PUNE f) Lustre Tiles Ltd. Vs ACIT 2007-TIOL-132-ITAT-JAIPUR g) Smt. Sneh Lata Jain v CIT [2004] 140 Taxman 156 J&K High Court 31 I.T.As. No.4736, 5237 & 5238/DEL/2017 h) Sunflag Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. LTD 2016-TIOL-2729-HC- MUM-IT i) Tiam…

Anant Raj Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-2(2), New Delhi

The appeal is allowed partly as indicated above

ITA 4736/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Goel, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, CA; Ms
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 50

…undernoted authorities: a) The Constitutional Bench decision of 9 Judges of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mafatlal Industries versus Union of India, (1997) 5 SCC 536 / (2002-TIOL-54-SC- CX) b) CIT Vs Shelly Products [2003] 261 ITR 367 (SC) c) R. Seshammal Vs ITO 237 ITR 185 (Madras) d) Sudhir Sareen v CIT 239 ITR 440 Delhi e) DCIT vs Lab India Instruments (P) Ltd., 93 ITD 120ITAT-PUNE f) Lustre Tiles Ltd. Vs ACIT 2007-TIOL-132-ITAT-JAIPUR g) Smt. Sneh Lata Jain v CIT [2004] 140 Taxman 156 J&K High Court 31 I.T.As. No.4736, 5237 & 5238/DEL/2017 h) Sunflag Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. LTD 2016-TIOL-2729-HC- MUM-IT i) Tiam…

ACIT, Circle- 2(2), New Delhi vs. Anant Raj Ltd., New Delhi

In the result assessee’s appeal is partly allowed and Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 5677/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 May 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Bindal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Goel, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)Section 4Section 50C

…TR 367 (SC) (c) Vijay Gupta [2016] 68 taxmann.com 131 (Delhi) (d) Abdul Qayume Vs CIT (1990) 184 ITR 404 (All) (e) Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd.Vs CIT 82 ITR 363 (SC) (f) CIT Vs Bharat General Reinsurance Co. Limited. 81 ITR 303 (Delhi) (g) R. Seshammal vs ITO 237 ITR 185 (Madras) (h) CIT Vs Bhawani Singhji [2018] 99 taxmann.com 338 (Delhi) (i) Shri Vipul P. Dalal Vs. DCIT - 12(2) 2016-LL-0603-1]- ITAT Mumbai (j) DCIT vs. Lab India Instruments (P) Ltd., 93 ITD 120 / 2005- TIOL-49-ITAT-PUNE (k) Raghavan Nair [2018] 89 taxmann.com 212 (Kerala) 11. Thus, he submitted that even if the income has been incorrectly asse…

Anant Raj Ltd, New Delhi vs. Addl.CIT, Range-2, Circle-2(2), New Delhi

In the result assessee’s appeal is partly allowed and Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 5169/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 May 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Bindal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Goel, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)Section 4Section 50C

…TR 367 (SC) (c) Vijay Gupta [2016] 68 taxmann.com 131 (Delhi) (d) Abdul Qayume Vs CIT (1990) 184 ITR 404 (All) (e) Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd.Vs CIT 82 ITR 363 (SC) (f) CIT Vs Bharat General Reinsurance Co. Limited. 81 ITR 303 (Delhi) (g) R. Seshammal vs ITO 237 ITR 185 (Madras) (h) CIT Vs Bhawani Singhji [2018] 99 taxmann.com 338 (Delhi) (i) Shri Vipul P. Dalal Vs. DCIT - 12(2) 2016-LL-0603-1]- ITAT Mumbai (j) DCIT vs. Lab India Instruments (P) Ltd., 93 ITD 120 / 2005- TIOL-49-ITAT-PUNE (k) Raghavan Nair [2018] 89 taxmann.com 212 (Kerala) 11. Thus, he submitted that even if the income has been incorrectly asse…

M/S Petronet Lng Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1197/DEL/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2015AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri G.C. Gupta & Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vikram Sahay, Sr. DR
Section 156

…TR 229 6. Auto Centre vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2005) 278 ITR 291 (All) 7. Parijat Chemicals P. Ltd. vs. ITO (1995) 216 ITR 221 (MP) 8. Smt. Rani Aggarwal vs. ACIT (2004) 265 ITR 22 9. Prem Chand Bansal vs. ITO (1999) 237 ITR 65 (del) 10. R. Seshmal vs. ITO 237 ITR 185 (Mad.) 11. Prima Paper & Engineering P. Ltd. vs. CIT reported in 221 Taxmann 209 (Bom) 12. Improvement Trust, Ludhiana vs. Ujagar Sing & Ors. Civil Appeal No. 2395 of 2008 Supreme Court Judgment dated 9th June, 2010 13. M/s. Sartorious Mechatronics India (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT ITA Nos. 982 to 984/Bang/2013 dated 27.3.2015 4 Petronet LNG Ltd. vs. DCI…