Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.26 seconds)The Income Tax Act, 1961
Article 5 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 11 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 234B in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madras vs V. Mr. P. Firm, Muar on 26 October, 1964
5.8 Further, in view of the fact that after June 2005 onward the
assessee has charged markup at the rate of 6 percentile on the
cost and has offered to tax as income as FTS, the learnedCounsel
submitted that in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of CIT Vs MRP Firm, Muar (1965) 56 ITR 67
(SC), wherein it is held that the doctrine of 'approbate and
reprobate' is only a species of estoppel and applies only to the
14
ITA No.1437 & 1438/Del/2012 &
5444/Del./2010
conduct of the parties. As in the case of the estoppel, it cannot
operate against the provision of the statute. If a particular income
is not taxable under the Income-tax Act, it cannot be taxed on the
basis of the estoppel or any other equitable doctrine. Equity is out
of the place in the tax law, aparticularincome is either eligible to
tax under the tax statute or it is not. If it is not, the ITO has no
power to impose tax on the said income. Accordingly, the
learnedCounsel submitted that question involved in present case
on whether cost reimbursement received by the assessee during
assessment year 2005-06 and 2006-07 satisfy make available
condition under Article 12 will have to be decided in accordance
with law without being influenced by the extraneous factors like
in subsequent years by adopting a different model receipt or
offered to tax in India.