60 Taxman 248/193 ITR 321 (SC) 2. CIT v. Western Outdoor Interactive (P) Ltd.

349 ITR 309High Court2012#1488 most cited

What is 60 Taxman 248/193 ITR 321 (SC) 2. CIT v. Western Outdoor Interactive (P) Ltd. authority for?

A deduction or benefit, particularly under profit-linked incentive sections like 10A or 80IA, allowed in an earlier assessment year should not be denied in subsequent years unless there is a change in law or fresh material justifying a different view.

76

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,418 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Western Outdoor Interactive (P) Ltd. · 349 ITR 309 · section 10A · section 80IA · section 80IE · deduction eligibility · consistency in assessment · benefit allowed in earlier year · not denied in subsequent years · RadhaSoami Satsang · profit-linked deduction

Also reported as

210 Taxmann 229

Sections most often in play

Section 14ASection 41(1)Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 144B

Issues it is cited on

section 80lasection 80ib(4)section 80ia(5)section 80lsection 80ia(4)(i)section 80ia(8)initial assessment yearresulting companydeduction under section 80iasection 80ia(4)infrastructure facilitydeduction u/s 80ia

Judgments citing 60 Taxman 248/193 ITR 321 (SC) 2. CIT v. Western Outdoor Interactive (P) Ltd.

Hindumal Balmukund Investment Co.Pvt.Ltd., Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2939/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Nitin RanderFor Respondent: Ms. Sabana Parveen
Section 271(1)(c)Section 80HSection 80ISection 80J

…t in the case of CIT Vs. Paul Brothers (supra) stands applicable to the facts of the present case legally. 7. Further, for commenting our view on the issue, we also perused the judgment in the case of CIT Vs. Western Outdoor Interactive Pvt. Ltd. reported in 349 ITR 309 (Bom.) wherein the Hon’ble High Court held as under: “6) We have considered the submissions. We find that the submissions made by Mr. Pardiwalla on the basis of the decision of this Court in the matter of Paul Brothers (supra) and Director of Information Pvt. Ltd. (supra) merits acceptance. Therefore, in this case, it is not necessary for us to…

Hindumal Balmukund Investment Co.Pvt.Ltd., Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2938/PUN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Nitin RanderFor Respondent: Ms. Sabana Parveen
Section 271(1)(c)Section 80HSection 80ISection 80J

…t in the case of CIT Vs. Paul Brothers (supra) stands applicable to the facts of the present case legally. 7. Further, for commenting our view on the issue, we also perused the judgment in the case of CIT Vs. Western Outdoor Interactive Pvt. Ltd. reported in 349 ITR 309 (Bom.) wherein the Hon’ble High Court held as under: “6) We have considered the submissions. We find that the submissions made by Mr. Pardiwalla on the basis of the decision of this Court in the matter of Paul Brothers (supra) and Director of Information Pvt. Ltd. (supra) merits acceptance. Therefore, in this case, it is not necessary for us to…

Hindumal Blmukund Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 266/PUN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Aug 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 266 & 267/Pun/2015 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

For Appellant: Shri V.L. JainFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Ghei
Section 80I

…draw the deduction when the facts are identical. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the judgment of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Paul Brothers (supra) stands applicable to the facts of the present case legally. 7. reported in 349 ITR 309 (Bom.) wherein the Hon’ble High Court held as under: “6) We have considered the submissions. We find that the submissions made by Mr. Pardiwalla on the basis of the decision of this Court in the matter of Paul Brothers (supra) and Director of Information Pvt. Ltd. (supra) merits acceptance. Therefore, in this case, it is not necessary for us to…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Gujarat Guardian Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue against the direction of the Ld

ITA 1106/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Aug 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.K.Yadav & Shri Prashant Maharishim/S. Guajarat Guardian Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 4-7/C, Dda Shopping Centre, Circle-12(1), (Now Circle- New Friends Colony, 10(2), New Delhi Cr Building, Ip Estate, Pan: Aaacg1622K New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Vs. M/S. Guajarat Guardian Ltd, Circle-12(1), (Now Circle-10(2), 4-7/C, Dda Shopping Cr Building, Ip Estate, Centre, New Delhi New Friends Colony, New Delhi Pan: Aaacg1622K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Smt Meeta Singh CIT DR
Section 144Section 144CSection 14A

…was withdrawn. For the reasons set out earlier, we need not consider this aspect. We find no merit in this appeal and accordingly, the same is dismissed.” - Similarly, the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Western Outdoor Interactive Pvt. Ltd: 349 ITR 309, held as under: “We have considered the submissions. We find that the submissions made by Mr. Pardiwalla on the basis of the decision of this Court in the matter of Paul Brothers (supra) and Director of Information Pvt. Ltd. (supra) merits acceptance. Therefore, in this case, it is not necessary for us to decide whether SEEPZ unit was set up/form…

ITO 1(1)(3), Mumbai vs. Everyday Health India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2936/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.2936/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri. Vipul JoshiFor Respondent: Shri V.Justin, DR
Section 10BSection 142(1)Section 143(3)

…he Act by Revenue, no disturbance can be made in the assessment year 2011-12 keeping in view principal of consistency . The assessee placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Western Outdoor Interactive P. Ltd., (2012) 349 ITR 309(Bom.) , which decision of Hon’ble Bombay high Court is placed in the paper book filed by the assessee.The reliance is also placed on the decision of ITAT-Mumbai in the case of Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd. v. ACIT , reported in (2015) 56 taxmann.com 168 (Mumbai-trib.). Reliance is also placed on CBDT circular no. 1/2005 dated 06.01.2005 . On merits it w…

Asst CIT 15(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Krystal Colloids P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are dismissed

ITA 3170/MUM/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2006-07 & Assessment Year: 2007-08 The Asst. Commissioner Of M/S Krystal Colloids Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax 15(2)(1) Room Vs. 119, Purusharth Bldg., Nawroji No. 357, 3Rd Floor, Aayakar Hill Road, No. 2, Dongri, Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Mumbai, 400009. Road, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aacck5409J Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Mr. Anoop Hiwase, Dr Assessee By : Mr. Anuj Kisnadwala, Ar Date Of Hearing : 07/05/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 31/07/2018

For Appellant: Mr. Anuj Kisnadwala, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Anoop Hiwase, DR
Section 143(3)Section 32(1)Section 47

…minum Co. Ltd. (2010) 187 Taxman 111 (Delhi), CIT v. Oswal Agro Mills Ltd. (2011) 197 Taxman 25 (Delhi), Swati Synthetics Ltd. v. ITO (2010) 38 SOT 208 (Mum). 7.1 The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Western Outdoor Interactive Pvt. Ltd. (2012) 349 ITR 309 (Bom) has held that whether a benefit of deduction is available for a particular number of years on satisfaction of certain conditions and under the provisions of the Act, then without withdrawing or setting aside the relief granted for the first AY in which claim was made and accepted, the AO cannot withdraw the relief for subsequent assessment…

ACIT Cir 2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Tata Chemical Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed is dismissed

ITA 5650/MUM/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2004-05 Acit Circle-2(3)(1), M/S Tata Chemical Ltd. R. No. 552, 5Th Floor, Bombay House, 24, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Homi Mody Street, Fort, Road, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aabct4059M Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Ms. S. Padmaja, Dr Assessee By : Mr. Atul T. Suraiya, Ar Date Of Hearing : 18/04/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/06/2018

For Appellant: Mr. Atul T. Suraiya, ARFor Respondent: Ms. S. Padmaja, DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80Section 80I

…hange of opinion of the AO is not permissible in the eyes of law. Thus, on this ground as well, the reopening has been rightly held as invalid by Ld. CIT(A).” 7.2 The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Western Outdoor Interactive Pvt. Ltd. (2012) 349 ITR 309 (Bom) has held that whether a benefit of deduction is available for a particular number of years on satisfaction of certain conditions and under the provisions of the Act, then without withdrawing or setting aside the relief granted for the first AY in which claim was made and accepted, the AO cannot withdraw the relief for subsequent assessment…

Ultra Tech Cement Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 2(2), Mumbai

In the result appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, whereas appeals of the assessee are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 5065/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Vs. Acit – 2(2), Mumbai Ahura Centre, B Wing, 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri – East Mumbai – 400 093 Pan/Gir No. Aaacl6442L Appellant) .. Respondent) M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Vs. Dcit – 2(2), Mumbai Ahura Centre, B Wing, 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri – East Mumbai – 400 093 Pan/Gir No. Aaacl6442L Appellant) .. Respondent) Acit – 2(2), Mumbai Vs. M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Ahura Centre, B Wing, 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri – East Mumbai – 400 093 Pan/Gir No. Aaacl6442L Appellant) .. Respondent) Dcit – 2(2), Mumbai Vs. M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Ahura Centre, B Wing, 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri – East Mumbai – 400 093 Pan/Gir No. Aaacl6442L Appellant) .. Respondent) M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Assessee By Shri Arvind Sonde Alongwith Shri Sampat Kabra Revenue By Smt. S.Padmaja

Section 127Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271Section 80Section 80l

…ncements in support of the proposition that benefit allowed in earlier year cannot be denied in subsequent years. 1. RadhaSoami Satsang v. Commissioner of Income Tax [1992]193 ITR 321 (SC)/[1991] 100 CTR 267 (SC) 2 CIT v. Western Outdoor Interactive (P) Ltd. [349 ITR 309] [BOMBAY] 3 CIT v. Paul Brothers. [216 ITR 548] [BOMBAY] M/s. Ultratech Cement Ltd., 4. Commissioner of Income Tax v. Macbrout Engineering (P.) Ltd. [2014] 52 taxmann.com 219 (Bombay)/[2015] 232 Taxman 406 (Bombay) 5. CIT v. Modi Industries Ltd. [327 ITR 570] [DELHI] 6. Commissioner of Income Tax v. Delhi Press Patra Prakashan Ltd. [2013]355 ITR…

DCIT 5(3), Mumbai vs. Sarto Electro Equipment P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3127/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Shri J.R. BhattFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Kumar Agarwal
Section 10ASection 51

…ssment year can be made unless such disallowance made in the initial year of claim is withdrawn / disallowed. In this context, learned counsel relied upon a decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in CIT v/s Western Outdoor Interactive Pvt. Ltd., [2012] 349 ITR 309 (Bom.). 7. We have considered the submissions of the parties and perused the material available on record. Before delving to decide the issue arising for consideration before us, it is necessary to provide a brief factual back–drop. The hearing of appeal was initially concluded on 15th February 2016. Subsequently, on the basis of a decision of t…

Ambo Exports Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cen, Cir-3(4), Kolkata

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

ITA 503/KOL/2015[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Jul 2016AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arindam Bhattacharya, JCIT
Section 10Section 10ASection 10A(7)Section 143(3)Section 80I

…to the department to deny the benefit of Section 10A for subsequent assessment years. The reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court rendered in the case of CIT V. Western Outdoor Interactive (P.) Ltd reported in (2012) 349 ITR 309 (Bom). 6 Ambo Exports Ltd., AY 2011-12 2.2.3. We also find that the issue as to whether the blending and processing of tea amounts to manufacturing of tea has been settled in favour of the assessee by the Special Bench decision of this Kolkata Tribunal in the case of Madhu Jayanti International Ltd vs DCIT reported in 137 ITD 377 (Kol) (SB) wher…

Addl CIT Cen Cir IX, Mumbai vs. Prism Cement Ltd, Mumbai

Appeals are disposed of in terms

ITA 8503/MUM/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendra

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 35E

…t if there is recurring issue and, if allowed in first year, then in the later year, the relief cannot be denied. Reliance was placed upon the decision in CIT vs Paul Brothers (1995) 216 ITR 548 (Bom) and CIT vs Western Outdoor Interactive (P.) Ltd. (2012) 349 ITR 309 (Bom.) and also the decision of the Tribunal in ITA No.3285 & 5087/Mum/2007 for Assessment year 2001-02 & 2002-03 in the case of assessee itself, order dated 25/02/2009. This factual matrix was not controverted by the ld. DR and he merely relied upon the impugned order. 2.1. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material ava…

ACIT Cen Cir Cir-34, Mumbai vs. Prism Cement Ltd, Mumbai

Appeals are disposed of in terms

ITA 3859/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendra

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 35E

…t if there is recurring issue and, if allowed in first year, then in the later year, the relief cannot be denied. Reliance was placed upon the decision in CIT vs Paul Brothers (1995) 216 ITR 548 (Bom) and CIT vs Western Outdoor Interactive (P.) Ltd. (2012) 349 ITR 309 (Bom.) and also the decision of the Tribunal in ITA No.3285 & 5087/Mum/2007 for Assessment year 2001-02 & 2002-03 in the case of assessee itself, order dated 25/02/2009. This factual matrix was not controverted by the ld. DR and he merely relied upon the impugned order. 2.1. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material ava…

DCIT Cen Cir 34, Mumbai vs. Prism Cement Ltd, Mumbai

Appeals are disposed of in terms

ITA 5751/MUM/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendra

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 35E

…t if there is recurring issue and, if allowed in first year, then in the later year, the relief cannot be denied. Reliance was placed upon the decision in CIT vs Paul Brothers (1995) 216 ITR 548 (Bom) and CIT vs Western Outdoor Interactive (P.) Ltd. (2012) 349 ITR 309 (Bom.) and also the decision of the Tribunal in ITA No.3285 & 5087/Mum/2007 for Assessment year 2001-02 & 2002-03 in the case of assessee itself, order dated 25/02/2009. This factual matrix was not controverted by the ld. DR and he merely relied upon the impugned order. 2.1. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material ava…

Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, we direct the AO to reduce the book profit u/s 115JB of the Act by the amount of reversal of the provision of Rs

ITA 196/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Apr 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. I. C.Sudhir Judicialmember & Sh. Prashant Maharishia.Y.: - 2008-09 Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. Vs Acit 12Th Floor, Devika Tower, Range -15 6, Nehru Place New Delhi New Delhi Pan No. Aaacr0127N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: 1. Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Amrendra Kumar, CIT, DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 92D

…Page 1 of 134 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘I’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. I. C.SUDHIR JudicialMember AND SH. PRASHANT MAHARISHI, Accountant Member A.Y.: - 2008-09 Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. Vs ACIT 12th Floor, Devika Tower, Range -15 6, Nehru Place New Delhi New Delhi PAN No. AAACR0127N (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Date of pronouncement 25/04/2016 Assessee by: 1. Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. with Sh. Rohit Jain, Adv.and Ms. Deepanvee Rao,Adv. on corporate tax issues 2. Sh. Rahul Mitra, C.A. with Sh. Derendra Gulari, C.A and Sh. Vinay Verma, C.A. on transfer pricing issues Revenue by: Shri Amrendra Kumar…

DCIT Cir 3(1), Mumbai vs. Gateway Distriparks Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5746/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendraassessment Year-2010-11 Dcit, M/S Gateway Distriparks Circle-3(1), Ltd. B 1/3, Emca House बनाम/ Room No.607, 6Th Floor, Sahid Bhagatsingh Marg, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- Mumbai-400020 Pan No.Aaacg3425C (राज"व /Revenue) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 80I

…independently in a particular assessment year which is not the case when the deduction is for specific period. In this context, he relied upon the following decisions:– 8 M/s Gateway Distriparks Ltd. i) CIT v/s Western Outdoor Interactive Pvt. Ltd., [2012] 349 ITR 309; ii) CIT v/s Paul Bros., [1995] 79 Taxman 378. 7. The learned Counsel submitted, the fact that the assessments for some of previous years have been re–opened on the basis of assessment order passed for the assessment year 2008–09 cannot have any impact on assessee’s claim of deduction as the facts existing on the date of assessment for the asses…

Addl CIT 3(1), Mumbai vs. Gateway Distriparks Ltd, Navi Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 5371/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Nov 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ashwani Taneja

For Appellant: Shri S.E. Dastur a/wFor Respondent: Smt. Anupama Shukla
Section 80I

…decide allowability of deduction independently in a particular assessment year which is not the case when the deduction is for specific period. In this context, he relied upon the following decisions:– i) CIT v/s Western Outdoor Interactive Pvt. Ltd., [2012] 349 ITR 309; ii) CIT v/s Paul Bros., [1995] 79 Taxman 378. 7. The learned Counsel submitted, the fact that the assessments for some of previous years have been re–opened on the basis of assessment order passed for the assessment year 2008–09 cannot have any impact on assessee’s claim of deduction as the facts existing on the date of assessment for the assess…