DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE vs. M/S. MYSORE MINERALS LTD, BANGALORE
In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, following previous decisions in the assessee's own cases for earlier assessment years. The addition on account of suppressed sales to M/s. Kalyani Steels Limited was deleted.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a government undertaking, declared income for AY 2011-12. The Assessing Officer made additions for suppressed sales, sales and promotion expenses, and under Section 14A. The CIT(A) deleted the addition for suppressed sales.
What were the issues?
Whether the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of suppressed sales to M/s. Kalyani Steels Limited was justified. The Tribunal considered the precedent set in the assessee's own cases for prior assessment years.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BANGALORE BENCH ‘ B ’
Before: SHRI JASON P BOAZ & SHRI LALIT KUMAR
Per Shri Jason P Boaz, A.M. : This appeal by Revenue is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Bangalore dt.22.07.2016 for the Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case relevant for disposal of this appeal are as under :-
2.1 The assessee-company, a Govt. of Karnataka undertaking engaged in extraction and marketing of minerals, filed its return of income for Assessment Year 2011-12 on 30.09.2011 declaring income of Rs.423,78,09,750. The return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') and the case was subsequently taken up for scrutiny. The assessment was concluded under Section 143(3) of the Act, vide order dt.14.3.2014 wherein the assessee's income was determined at Rs.427,31,46,005; which, inter alia, included an addition of Rs.3,47,05,200 on account of suppressed sales to M/s. Kalyani Steels Ltd., disallowance of sales and promotion expenses ofRs.6,15,013 and disallowance of Rs.15,452 under Section 14A r.w. Rule 8D.
2.2 Aggrieved by the order of assessment dt.14.3.2014 for Assessment Year 2011-12, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT (Appeals) -4, Bangalore. The learned CIT (Appeals) disposed of the appeal vide the impugned order allowed the assessee partial relief by deleting only the addition of Rs.3,47,05,368 made on account of suppressed sales to M/s. Kalyani Steels Limited.
3.1 Revenue, being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT (Appeals) dt.22.6.2016 for Assessment Year 2011-12 in deleting the addition made on account of suppressed sales to M/s. Kalyani Steels Ltd. has filed this appeal raising the following grounds on this issue :-
3.2 The learned Departmental Representative for Revenue was heard in support of the grounds raised (supra).
3.3 Per contra, the learned Authorised Representative for the assessee submitted that there was no error in the impugned order of the learned CIT (Appeals) on this issue as he has rightly followed the decision of the co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in the assessee's own case for Assessment Years 2008-09 and 2009-10 in & 1105/Bang/2012 and ITA Nos.808 and 1309/Bang/2012 dt.10.10.2014, which had in turn followed the decision of another co-ordinate bench in the assessee's own case for Assessment Year 2005-06 in ITA No.351/Bang/2011 dt.2.11.2012. It was further submitted that a co- ordinate bench of this Tribunal in the assessee's own case for Assessment Year 2010-11 in ITA No.1496/Bang/2014 dt.3.8.2015 had Assessing Officer on account of suppressed sales to M/s. Kalyani Steels Limited, following the aforesaid decision of the co-ordinate bench in assessee's own case for Assessment Year 2005-06 (supra).
3.4.1 We have heard the rival contentions, perused and carefully considered the material on record; including the judicial pronouncements (cited) on the issue before us; i.e. addition on account of suppressed sales to M/s. Kalyani Steels Limited. As brought to our notice, this issue has been considered and held in favour of the assessee and against revenue by the orders of various co-ordinate benches of this Tribunal in the assessee's own case for Assessment Year 2005-06 in dt.2.11.2012; for Assessment Years 2008-09 and 2009-10 in ITA Nos.683 & 1109/Bang/2011 and 808 & 1309/Bang/2012 dt.10.10.2014 and for Assessment Year 2010-11 in ITA No.1496/Bang/2014 dt.3.8.2015. In its order for Assessment Year 2010- 11 (supra), the co-ordinate bench at paras 8 & 9 of its order has held as under :
“8. At the time of hearing of the appeal, it was brought to our notice that this Tribunal on an identical issue in assessee's own case for the Assessment Year 2005-06 in by order dt.2.11.2012, held as follows :
We are of the view that the facts and circumstances giving rise to appeal on the above issue are identical as in the earlier assessment year. Respectfully following the decision of the Tribunal (supra), we uphold the order of the CIT (Appeals) and dismiss the appeal by the Revenue.”
3.4.2 We are of the view that the facts and circumstances of the case giving rise to the appeal on the above issue are identical to that of the earlier assessment years. Therefore respectfully following the decision of the co-ordinate bench in the assessee's own case for Assessment Year 2005-06 in dt.2.11.2012 and Assessment Year 2010-11 in ITA NO.1496/Bang/2014 dt.7.8.2015, we uphold the order of the learned CIT (Appeals) and consequently dismiss Revenue’s appeal.
In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A.Y. 2011-12 is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on the 31st day of Jan., 2018.
More judgments on Section 14A
- Blacksoil Capital Private Limited (As… vs DCIT, Circle-1(1), HyderabadITA 2217/HYD/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Hiral Construction, Mumbai vs ITO Ward 42(1)(2), MumbaiITA 8431/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- The Dy DIT (It) 1(2), Mumbai vs M/S Citi Bank N.A, MumbaiITA 4981/MUM/2007[2002-2003]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2002-2003
- M/S. Citi Bank N.A., Mumbai vs The Addl DIT (It) RG-1, MumbaiITA 4970/MUM/2007[2002-2003]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2002-2003
- M/S American Express Bank Ltd., Mumbai vs The Jt DIT (It)1(1), MumbaiITA 9414/MUM/2004[2000-2001]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2000-2001
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Dr.Sunil Kumar Padhi vs. The Chief Commissioner, GST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- N.K Fashion Through It Proprietor Mr. Narender Agarwal vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Central Goods And Service Tax, Delhi EastDelhi · 14 Oct 2026
- J M Mhatre Infra PVT. LTD Thr. Authorized Chetanj Mhatre vs. Union Of INDIA Thr. Secretary And OrsBombay · 14 Oct 2026
- J M Mhatre Infra PVT. LTD Thr. Authorized Chetan J. Mhatre vs. Union Of INDIA Thr. Secretary And OrsBombay · 14 Oct 2026
- Namita Behera vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026