Section 2(47)(vi) of the Income Tax Act

The decision most relied on for Section 2(47)(vi) is 7. CIT v. MR.P.FIRM.MUAR (56 ITR 67), cited in 127 of the 43 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 2(47)(vi)

7. CIT v. MR.P.FIRM.MUAR
56 ITR 67 · 1965 · Supreme Court
127
citing judgments

A taxpayer can raise a plea that their income is not taxable, even if they have previously made an agreement regarding the quantification of taxable income. The principle of estoppel does not apply against a settled position in law.

Balmukund Acharya v. DCIT
310 ITR 310 · 2009 · High Court
116
citing judgments

Tax authorities are obligated to act in accordance with the law and ensure only legitimate taxes are collected, assisting assessees who have been over-assessed due to mistake or misconception.

Nirmala L. Mehta v. A. Balasubramaniam, CIT
269 ITR 1 · 2004 · High Court
108
citing judgments

There can be no estoppel against the statute, meaning tax cannot be levied or collected without express authority of law. An appellate authority may adjudicate additional claims or legal contentions to ensure the correct tax liability is determined.

S.R. Kosti v. CIT
77 ITR 237 · 1970 · High Court
47
citing judgments

Income tax authorities are obligated to assist assessees who are over-assessed due to mistake, misconception, or lack of proper instruction, ensuring only legitimate taxes are collected.

Dy. CST v. Sreeni Printers
67 SCC 279 · 1987 · Reported
37
citing judgments

Tax cannot be levied if it is not permitted under the Act, even if the doctrine of estoppel might otherwise apply. No tax can be levied or collected except by authority of law.

Smt. Shali Moti Lal v. CIT
35 Taxmann.com 46 · 2013 · Reported
3
citing judgments

Judgments on Section 2(47)(vi)

Rajamanickam Meerabai, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

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

ITA 923/CHNY/2020[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Oct 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manjunatha.Gआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 923/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2006 - 07 Smt. Rajamanikam Meerabai, The Income Tax Officer, Door No.29, Old No.T-2-2, Vs. Non Corporate Ward -15(3), Cauveri Salai Chennai. Besant Nagar South, Chennai – 600 090. Pan: Aaopm 7401M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, C.A ""यथ"क" ओ रसे/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10.10.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18.10.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-15, Chennai In Ita No.180/Cit(A)-15/2016-17 Dated 21.09.2020. The Assessment Was Framed By The Income Tax Officer, Non Corporate Ward 15(3), Chennai For The Assessment Year 2006-07 U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 254 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Vide Order Dated 31.03.2016. 2. The Only Issue In This Appeal Of Assessee Is As Regards To The Order Of Cit(A) Confirming The Action Of The Ao In Computing Long Term Capital Gain & Disallowing The Claim Of Exemption U/S.54 Of The Act. For This, Assessee Has Raised Various Grounds Which Are Argumentative & Exhaustive & Hence, Need Not Be Reproduced.

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, C.A ""For Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 2(47)(v)Section 54