Ace Investments (P) Ltd. v. CIT (Mad)

244 ITR 166High Court#7783 most cited

What is Ace Investments (P) Ltd. v. CIT (Mad) authority for?

Findings in earlier assessment years are not conclusive and facts can be reconsidered in later years, leading to different findings.

14

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Ace Investments (P) Ltd v. CIT · 244 ITR 166 · finding for earlier year not conclusive · facts can be reconsidered · rule of consistency not applicable · assessment procedure · section 143(3) · section 250 · section 263

Sections most often in play

Section 10AASection 10DSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 250Section 263Section 80-O

Issues it is cited on

section 3asection 10(20a)section 10(20)advancement of general public utilitysection 13(8)revision under section 263proviso to section 2(15)section 11(1)rule of consistencysection 2(15)childapplication of income

Judgments citing Ace Investments (P) Ltd. v. CIT (Mad)

Ych Logistics India Private Limited, Kanchipuram, Tamilnadu vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle -3(2), Chennai

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

ITA 1330/CHNY/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 1330/Chny/2023 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Ych Logistics India Private Ltd., Assistant Commissioner Of Plot D V 1, Hi-Tech Sez Phase Ii, V. Income Tax, Sirumangadu Village, Sriperumbudur Corporate Circle -3(2), Taluk, Tamil Nadu 602 105. Chennai. [Pan: Aaacy-2873-L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. Ajit Kumar Jain, CA by VirtualFor Respondent: Shri. A. Sasikumar, CIT
Section 10ASection 250Section 92C(3)Section 92D

…to the instant case. At this juncture reference is made to few cases in which it has been held that the principle of res judicata is not applicable for tax matters:  CITv. Seshasayee industries Ltd[(Mad) 242 ITR 691]  Ace Investments (P) Ltd v. CIT [(Mad) 244 ITR 166]  M.M. lpoh &Ors. v. CIT [(SC) 67 ITR 106]  New Jehangir Vakil Mills Co. Ltdv. CIT[(SC) 49 ITR 137] :-26-: ITA. No: 1330/Chny/2023  Bharat Sanchar Nijam Ltd &Ors v. UOI &Ors. [(SC) 282 ITR 273] 15. Thus, the ld.DR submitted that the claim of the assessee for deduction under Sec 10AA of the Act, is not tenable based on the arguments advanced,…

Slum Rehabilitation Authority, Mumbai vs. The ACIT(Exemption) Circle-2, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1998/MUM/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

Section 10Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 250

…ad.) 242 ITR 691, it was further held that the fact that its claim was not questioned in earlier years does not entitle the assessee to contend that the law should not be applied during the current A.Y. and in the case of Ace Investments (P) Ltd Vs. CIT (Mad) 244 ITR 166 it was held that facts can be Slum Rehabilitation Authority A.Y. 2010–11, 2011–12, 2012–13 2013–14, 2014–15, 2015–16 & 2016–17 reconsidered in later year and record different finding - Finding for earlier year not conclusive." 5.7.1 The rule of consistency argued by the appellant is in fact not applicable because it is not a case where the issue…

Slum Rehabilitation Authority, Mumbai vs. DCIT (E)-2(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 700/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

Section 10Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 250

…ad.) 242 ITR 691, it was further held that the fact that its claim was not questioned in earlier years does not entitle the assessee to contend that the law should not be applied during the current A.Y. and in the case of Ace Investments (P) Ltd Vs. CIT (Mad) 244 ITR 166 it was held that facts can be Slum Rehabilitation Authority A.Y. 2010–11, 2011–12, 2012–13 2013–14, 2014–15, 2015–16 & 2016–17 reconsidered in later year and record different finding - Finding for earlier year not conclusive." 5.7.1 The rule of consistency argued by the appellant is in fact not applicable because it is not a case where the issue…

Slum Rehabilitation Authority, Mumbai vs. DDIT (E)-2(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2075/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

Section 10Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 250

…ad.) 242 ITR 691, it was further held that the fact that its claim was not questioned in earlier years does not entitle the assessee to contend that the law should not be applied during the current A.Y. and in the case of Ace Investments (P) Ltd Vs. CIT (Mad) 244 ITR 166 it was held that facts can be Slum Rehabilitation Authority A.Y. 2010–11, 2011–12, 2012–13 2013–14, 2014–15, 2015–16 & 2016–17 reconsidered in later year and record different finding - Finding for earlier year not conclusive." 5.7.1 The rule of consistency argued by the appellant is in fact not applicable because it is not a case where the issue…

Slum Rehabilitation Authority, Mumbai vs. DCIT (E)-2(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1077/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

Section 10Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 250

…ad.) 242 ITR 691, it was further held that the fact that its claim was not questioned in earlier years does not entitle the assessee to contend that the law should not be applied during the current A.Y. and in the case of Ace Investments (P) Ltd Vs. CIT (Mad) 244 ITR 166 it was held that facts can be Slum Rehabilitation Authority A.Y. 2010–11, 2011–12, 2012–13 2013–14, 2014–15, 2015–16 & 2016–17 reconsidered in later year and record different finding - Finding for earlier year not conclusive." 5.7.1 The rule of consistency argued by the appellant is in fact not applicable because it is not a case where the issue…

Slum Rehabilitation Authority, Mumbai vs. DDIT (E)-2(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 5086/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

Section 10Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 250

…ad.) 242 ITR 691, it was further held that the fact that its claim was not questioned in earlier years does not entitle the assessee to contend that the law should not be applied during the current A.Y. and in the case of Ace Investments (P) Ltd Vs. CIT (Mad) 244 ITR 166 it was held that facts can be Slum Rehabilitation Authority A.Y. 2010–11, 2011–12, 2012–13 2013–14, 2014–15, 2015–16 & 2016–17 reconsidered in later year and record different finding - Finding for earlier year not conclusive." 5.7.1 The rule of consistency argued by the appellant is in fact not applicable because it is not a case where the issue…

Slum Rehabilitation Authority, Mumbai vs. ITO 29(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2240/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

Section 10Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 250

…ad.) 242 ITR 691, it was further held that the fact that its claim was not questioned in earlier years does not entitle the assessee to contend that the law should not be applied during the current A.Y. and in the case of Ace Investments (P) Ltd Vs. CIT (Mad) 244 ITR 166 it was held that facts can be Slum Rehabilitation Authority A.Y. 2010–11, 2011–12, 2012–13 2013–14, 2014–15, 2015–16 & 2016–17 reconsidered in later year and record different finding - Finding for earlier year not conclusive." 5.7.1 The rule of consistency argued by the appellant is in fact not applicable because it is not a case where the issue…

Slum Rehabilitation Authority, Mumbai vs. DDIT (E) 1(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1806/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

Section 10Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 250

…ad.) 242 ITR 691, it was further held that the fact that its claim was not questioned in earlier years does not entitle the assessee to contend that the law should not be applied during the current A.Y. and in the case of Ace Investments (P) Ltd Vs. CIT (Mad) 244 ITR 166 it was held that facts can be Slum Rehabilitation Authority A.Y. 2010–11, 2011–12, 2012–13 2013–14, 2014–15, 2015–16 & 2016–17 reconsidered in later year and record different finding - Finding for earlier year not conclusive." 5.7.1 The rule of consistency argued by the appellant is in fact not applicable because it is not a case where the issue…

M/S. Surendranagar District Co-Op. Milk Producers Union Ltd., Surendranagar vs. The DCIT, Surendranagr Circle, Surendranagar

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 262/RJT/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot20 Sept 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.262-263/Rjt/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14) बनाम/ M/S.Surendranagar District D.C.I.T, Co-Op. Milk Producers Surendranagar Circle, Vs. Union Ltd. Surendranagar. Wadhwan City, Surendranagar "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaas8375B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, A.R ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Jitender Kumar, Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing 17/09/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement 20/09/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Ahmedabad [Ld. Cit(A) In Short] Of Even Dated 12/01/2018, Arising In The Matter Of Assessment Order Passed Under 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") Dated 26/03/2015 Relevant To Assessment Years (A.Ys) 20012-13 & 2013-14. Ita Nos.262-263/Rjt/2018 A.Y.S 2012-13 To 2013-14 First, We Take Up Ita No. 262/Rjt/2018 For A.Y. 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Kumar, DR
Section 194JSection 36Section 40Section 40A(3)Section 43BSection 48Section 80P(2)(b)Section 80P(2)(d)

…tion Ltd. Vs ITO 2010- TIOL-587-ITAT-DEL, Jat Education Society Vs DCIT (ITAT, Del) 10 taxmann.com 127 (e) Facts can be reconsidered in a later year and record different finding- Finding for earlier year not conclusive - Ace Investments (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT (Mad) 244 ITR 166. 4.2.5 During the year under consideration, through the enquiries made during the appellate proceedings, it is established that the appellant is only one of the 18 district level cooperative societies and along with 17 other said district level societies is engaged in the process of collecting milk from the various primary milk producing cooperat…

The ITO, Ward-2(2), Jamnagar vs. Smt. Shitalben Saurabh Vora, Jamnagar

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 651/RJT/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot20 Sept 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.262-263/Rjt/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14) बनाम/ M/S.Surendranagar District D.C.I.T, Co-Op. Milk Producers Surendranagar Circle, Vs. Union Ltd. Surendranagar. Wadhwan City, Surendranagar "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaas8375B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, A.R ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Jitender Kumar, Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing 17/09/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement 20/09/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Ahmedabad [Ld. Cit(A) In Short] Of Even Dated 12/01/2018, Arising In The Matter Of Assessment Order Passed Under 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") Dated 26/03/2015 Relevant To Assessment Years (A.Ys) 20012-13 & 2013-14. Ita Nos.262-263/Rjt/2018 A.Y.S 2012-13 To 2013-14 First, We Take Up Ita No. 262/Rjt/2018 For A.Y. 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Kumar, DR
Section 194JSection 36Section 40Section 40A(3)Section 43BSection 48Section 80P(2)(b)Section 80P(2)(d)

…tion Ltd. Vs ITO 2010- TIOL-587-ITAT-DEL, Jat Education Society Vs DCIT (ITAT, Del) 10 taxmann.com 127 (e) Facts can be reconsidered in a later year and record different finding- Finding for earlier year not conclusive - Ace Investments (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT (Mad) 244 ITR 166. 4.2.5 During the year under consideration, through the enquiries made during the appellate proceedings, it is established that the appellant is only one of the 18 district level cooperative societies and along with 17 other said district level societies is engaged in the process of collecting milk from the various primary milk producing cooperat…

World Institution Development Programme, New Delhi vs. ITO(Exe3Mption), Ward-2(3), New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 8/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Sept 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishiworld Institution Development Vs. Ito(Exemption), Programme, Ward-2(3), C/O. Kapil Goel, Advocate, F- New Delhi 26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, New Delhi Pan: Aaatw2229B (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, Sr. DR
Section 12Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 80G

…s not applicable to income tax proceedings since each assessment year is separate unit. It has been held that a wrong view taken in the past cannot be allowed to perpetuate based on the principle of consistency. In the case of Ace Investments (P) Ltd. Vs CIT [244 ITR 166(Mad)] it has been held that finding for earlier year is not conclusive if facts can be reconsidered in a later year and different findings are recorded. In the case under consideration from the assessment orders for assessment years 2012- 13 and 2013-14 it is seen that on the basis of the facts, different findings have been recorded in the year u…

Powerloom Developement & Export Promotion Council, Mumbai vs. ITO (E) 2(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1185/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.Manjunatha, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm M/S. Powerloom Development & Ito (Exemption)-2(2), 4Th Floor, Export Promotion Council, C/O Piramal Chambers, Lal Baug, बिधम/ Shankar Lal Jain & Associates, Mumbai. Vs. 12, Engineer Building, 265, Princess Street, Mumbai 400 002. स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aaatp0271E (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri. S.L Jain , A.RFor Respondent: Shri. Rajat Mittal, D.R
Section 11Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 25

…Mad) 242 ITR 691, it was further held that the fact that its claim was not questioned in earlier year does not entitle the assessee to contend that the law should not be applied during the current A.Y. and in the case of Ace Investments (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT (Mad) 244 ITR 166 it was held that facts can be reconsidered in later year and record different finding for earlier year not conclusive. The legal position is finally settled that each assessment year is a separate unit. Also in the case under consideration, the legal issue as regards to the applicability of proviso to section 2(15) mutuality is involved. In the c…

The Fine Arts Society, Mumbai vs. ITO (E) 2(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 189/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri G Manjunatha, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 2171/Mum/2016 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, DR
Section 11Section 12Section 143(3)Section 2(15)

…Mad) 242 ITR 691, it was further held that the fact that its claim was not questioned in earlier years does not entitle the assessee to contend that the law should not be applied during the current A.Y. and in the case of Ace Investments (P) Ltd Vs. CIT (Mad) 244 ITR 166 'it was held that facts can be reconsidered in later year and record different finding - Finding for earlier year not conclusive.' Contention of the appellant is therefore not acceptable. ix. In view of above discussion grounds of appeal numbers 1 to 4 are dismissed.” Aggrieved, now assessee is in appeal before Tribunal. 7. Before us, the learn…

The Fine Arts Society, Mumbai vs. Dy Director of Income Tax (Exemptions) - 1(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 2171/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri G Manjunatha, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 2171/Mum/2016 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, DR
Section 11Section 12Section 143(3)Section 2(15)

…Mad) 242 ITR 691, it was further held that the fact that its claim was not questioned in earlier years does not entitle the assessee to contend that the law should not be applied during the current A.Y. and in the case of Ace Investments (P) Ltd Vs. CIT (Mad) 244 ITR 166 'it was held that facts can be reconsidered in later year and record different finding - Finding for earlier year not conclusive.' Contention of the appellant is therefore not acceptable. ix. In view of above discussion grounds of appeal numbers 1 to 4 are dismissed.” Aggrieved, now assessee is in appeal before Tribunal. 7. Before us, the learn…

Ace Investments (P) Ltd. v. CIT (Mad) (244 ITR 166) — Cited in 14 Judgments | BharatTax