ACIT v. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd.

305 ITR 227Supreme Court of India2008#151 most cited

What is ACIT v. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. authority for?

Non-consideration of a decision by a jurisdictional High Court or the Supreme Court constitutes a mistake apparent from the record. However, non-consideration of a non-jurisdictional High Court decision does not typically amount to such a mistake.

470

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,154 Indian tax judgments — from 2008 to 2026.

Also referred to as

ACIT v. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. · Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange · mistake apparent from record · section 154 · section 254(2) · rectification of mistake · non-consideration jurisdictional High Court · non-consideration Supreme Court · judicial precedent oversight · error on record · 305 ITR 227

Also reported as

173 Taxmann 322

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 147Section 143(1)Section 263Section 142(1)Section 148
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 254(2)mistake apparent from recordmistake apparent on recordsection 2(24)section 254miscellaneous applicationsection 36(1)(va)section 43bsection 36(1)section 154section 36section 25

Judgments citing ACIT v. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd.

Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Mumbai

In the result, the ITA No

ITA 1645/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2022AY 2014-15
Section 143(3)Section 28

…ore, the applicability of the non-jurisdictional High Court is never absolute, without exceptions and as a matter of course. That is the principle implicit in Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in the case of ACIT v. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. [(2008) 305 ITR 227 (SC)] wherein Their Lordships have upheld the plea that "non- consideration of a decision of Jurisdictional Court or of the Supreme Court can be said to be a mistake apparent from the record". The decisions of Hon'ble non-jurisdictional High Courts are thus placed at a ITA Nos.1645 & 2876/Mum/2019 ITA Nos.2344 & 3945/Mum/2019 Assessment Years: 20…

Waidhan Engineering &Industries Pvt . Ltd Waidhan, Singrauli vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC Bangaluru, Bengaluru

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed

ITA 41/JAB/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur07 Mar 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon’Ble Accountnt Member & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Sukesh Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Halder, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 44A

…sion/s by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court, which would, where so, hold, even justifying a rectification u/s. 154/254(2), and even where rendered after the date of the order sought to be rectified (Asst. CIT v. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. [2008] 305 ITR 227 (SC); CIT v. Aruna Luthra [2001] 252 ITR 76 (P&H)(FB)). No such decision has been found, or otherwise pointed out by the parties, as was the case before the Tribunal in Nikhil Mohine (supra). Waidhan Engineering & Industries (P.) Ltd. v Dy. CIT Any such decision, even if discovered later, may operate to amend this order, or the order giving appe…

Waidhan Engineering &Industries, Singrauli vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC Bengaluru, Bengaluru

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed

ITA 40/JAB/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur07 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon’Ble Accountnt Member & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Sukesh Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Halder, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 44A

…sion/s by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court, which would, where so, hold, even justifying a rectification u/s. 154/254(2), and even where rendered after the date of the order sought to be rectified (Asst. CIT v. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. [2008] 305 ITR 227 (SC); CIT v. Aruna Luthra [2001] 252 ITR 76 (P&H)(FB)). No such decision has been found, or otherwise pointed out by the parties, as was the case before the Tribunal in Nikhil Mohine (supra). Waidhan Engineering & Industries (P.) Ltd. v Dy. CIT Any such decision, even if discovered later, may operate to amend this order, or the order giving appe…

Cosyn Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, TDS, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

ITA 65/HYD/2019[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Feb 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahum.A.Nos.85 & 86/Hyd/2021 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.64 & 65/Hyd/2019) Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18 M/S. Cosyn Limited, The Deputy Commissioner (Formerly Known As Of Income Tax, Css Technergy Limited). Tds, Circle 1(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan No.Aabcc3628G. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri Praveen Nair For Sri Karan Talwar. Revenue By: Sri Swapnil Patil. Date Of Hearing: 04/02/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 16/02/2022 Order Per S. S. Godara, J.M. These Revenue’S Twin Miscellaneous Applications Filed U/S 254(2) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘Act’) Seek To Recall Our Impugned Common Order 11.06.2021 Deleting Section 200A R.W.S. 234E Late Filing Fee; Involving Varying Sums, Respectively. Heard Both The Parties. Case Files Perused.

For Appellant: Sri Praveen Nair for Sri Karan TalwarFor Respondent: Sri Swapnil Patil
Section 200ASection 200A(1)(c)Section 254(2)

…se before us is the assessee’s instant twin appeals pertain to the time period after 01.06.2015 only and therefore, we ought to recall our order. The assessee has strongly supported our order by quoting case law ACIT Vs. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange (2008) 305 ITR 227 (SC) as reiterated in CIT Vs. Reliance Telecom Ltd (2021) 133 taxmann.com 41 (SC) that section 254(2) proceedings do not tantamount to rehearing of the entire matter afresh as it is projected at the Revenue’s behest. 3. We find no merit in the assessee’s stand as it has already been made clear that our order in issue had declared on one hand that…

Cosyn Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, TDS, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

ITA 64/HYD/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Feb 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahum.A.Nos.85 & 86/Hyd/2021 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.64 & 65/Hyd/2019) Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18 M/S. Cosyn Limited, The Deputy Commissioner (Formerly Known As Of Income Tax, Css Technergy Limited). Tds, Circle 1(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan No.Aabcc3628G. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri Praveen Nair For Sri Karan Talwar. Revenue By: Sri Swapnil Patil. Date Of Hearing: 04/02/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 16/02/2022 Order Per S. S. Godara, J.M. These Revenue’S Twin Miscellaneous Applications Filed U/S 254(2) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘Act’) Seek To Recall Our Impugned Common Order 11.06.2021 Deleting Section 200A R.W.S. 234E Late Filing Fee; Involving Varying Sums, Respectively. Heard Both The Parties. Case Files Perused.

For Appellant: Sri Praveen Nair for Sri Karan TalwarFor Respondent: Sri Swapnil Patil
Section 200ASection 200A(1)(c)Section 254(2)

…se before us is the assessee’s instant twin appeals pertain to the time period after 01.06.2015 only and therefore, we ought to recall our order. The assessee has strongly supported our order by quoting case law ACIT Vs. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange (2008) 305 ITR 227 (SC) as reiterated in CIT Vs. Reliance Telecom Ltd (2021) 133 taxmann.com 41 (SC) that section 254(2) proceedings do not tantamount to rehearing of the entire matter afresh as it is projected at the Revenue’s behest. 3. We find no merit in the assessee’s stand as it has already been made clear that our order in issue had declared on one hand that…

Dy CIT CC 6(4), Mumbai vs. Shri. Dilip J Thakkar, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 966/MUM/2020[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Feb 2022AY 1999-2000
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 149Section 149(1)(c)

…f the non-jurisdictional High Court is never absolute, without exceptions and as a matter of course. That is the principle implicit in the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in the case of Asstt. CIT v. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. [2008] 173 Taxman 322/305 ITR 227 wherein Their Lordships have upheld the plea that "non-consideration of a decision of Jurisdictional Court or of the Supreme Court can be said to be a mistake apparent from the record". The decisions of Hon'ble non- jurisdictional High Courts are thus placed at a level certainly below the Hon'ble High Court, and it's a conscious call that is requ…

M/S National Hospital, Jabalpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed

ITA 47/JAB/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur20 Dec 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Ble

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43B

…decision/s by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court, which would, where so, hold, even justifying a rectification u/s. 154/254(2), even where rendered after the date of the order sought to be rectified (Asst. CIT v. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. [2008] 305 ITR 227 (SC); CIT v. Aruna Luthra [2001] 252 ITR 76 (P&H)(FB)). No such decision has been found, or otherwise pointed out by the parties, as was the case before the Tribunal in Nikhil Mohine (supra). Any such decision, even if discovered later, may operate to amend this order, or the order giving appeal effect thereto, to bring it in conformity or agreem…

M\S National Hospital, Jabalpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed

ITA 46/JAB/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur20 Dec 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Ble

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43B

…decision/s by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court, which would, where so, hold, even justifying a rectification u/s. 154/254(2), even where rendered after the date of the order sought to be rectified (Asst. CIT v. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. [2008] 305 ITR 227 (SC); CIT v. Aruna Luthra [2001] 252 ITR 76 (P&H)(FB)). No such decision has been found, or otherwise pointed out by the parties, as was the case before the Tribunal in Nikhil Mohine (supra). Any such decision, even if discovered later, may operate to amend this order, or the order giving appeal effect thereto, to bring it in conformity or agreem…

Bromide Chemical Industries, Jabalpur vs. Dy . Commissioner of Income Tax, Jabalpur

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 39/JAB/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur20 Dec 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Bleassessment Year: 2018-19 Bromide Chemical Industries Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Income Tax, Jabalpur Cpc, Income Tax Department, (M.P.) Bengaluru - 560500 [Pan: Aacfb 3911F] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Sukesh Kumar, Fca Respondent By Sh. S.K. Halder, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15/12/2021 Date Of Pronouncement 20/12/2021

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43B

…High Court, which would, where so, 5 Bromide Chemical Industries v. Dy. CIT hold, even justifying a rectification u/s. 154/254(2), even where rendered after the date of the order sought to be rectified (Asst. CIT v. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. [2008] 305 ITR 227 (SC); CIT v. Aruna Luthra [2001] 252 ITR 76 (P&H)(FB)). No such decision has been found, or otherwise pointed out by the parties, as was the case before the Tribunal in Nikhil Mohine (supra). Any such decision, even if discovered later, may operate to amend this order, or the order giving appeal effect thereto, to bring it in conformity or agreem…

Omega Hospital and Blood Bank, Jabalpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax CPC, Jabalpur

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 36/JAB/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur20 Dec 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Bleassessment Year: 2018-19 Omega Hospital & Blood Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Income Tax, Bank, Cpc, Jabalpur (M.P.) Bangalore [Pan: Aabfo 8142Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Manoj Kumar Jain & Sh. Kailash Chandra Agrawal (Cas) Respondent By Sh. S.K. Halder, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 13/12/2021 Date Of Pronouncement 20/12/2021

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43B

…decision/s by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court, which would, where so, hold, even justifying a rectification u/s. 154/254(2), even where rendered after the date of the order sought to be rectified (Asst. CIT v. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. [2008] 305 ITR 227 (SC); CIT v. Aruna Luthra [2001] 252 ITR 76 (P&H)(FB)). No such decision has been found, or otherwise pointed out by the parties, as was the case before the Tribunal in Nikhil Mohine (supra). Any such decision, even if discovered later, may operate to amend this order, or the order giving appeal effect thereto, to bring it in conformity or agreem…

M/S. Khyati Chemicals Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. Dy. CIT, (OSD), Ahmedabad

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 779/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Dec 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 884/Ahd/2014 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2004-05 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 779/Ahd/2015 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2011-12 M/S Khyati Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., D.C.I.T(Osd), A/7, 4Th Floor, Safai Profitire, Vs. Circle-4, Opp. Auda Garden, Ahmedabad. Prahladnagar, Corporate Road, Satellite, Ahmedabad-380015. Pan: Aaack6277E

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Purushottam Kumar, Sr.D.R
Section 28Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(iii)

…e materials available on record. Admittedly, non-consideration of the judgment of the jurisdictional High Court amounts to a mistake apparent from record as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT vs. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. reported in 305 ITR 227. The relevant extract of the judgment is reproduced as under: The core issue, therefore, is whether non-consideration of a decision of Jurisdictional Court or of the Supreme Court can be said to be a 'mistake apparent from the record'? Both, the Tribunal and the High Court were right in holding that such a mistake can be said to be a 'mistake app…

M/S. Khyati Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT(OSD)-I, Circle-4, Ahmedabad

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 884/AHD/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Dec 2021AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 884/Ahd/2014 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2004-05 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 779/Ahd/2015 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2011-12 M/S Khyati Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., D.C.I.T(Osd), A/7, 4Th Floor, Safai Profitire, Vs. Circle-4, Opp. Auda Garden, Ahmedabad. Prahladnagar, Corporate Road, Satellite, Ahmedabad-380015. Pan: Aaack6277E

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Purushottam Kumar, Sr.D.R
Section 28Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(iii)

…e materials available on record. Admittedly, non-consideration of the judgment of the jurisdictional High Court amounts to a mistake apparent from record as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT vs. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. reported in 305 ITR 227. The relevant extract of the judgment is reproduced as under: The core issue, therefore, is whether non-consideration of a decision of Jurisdictional Court or of the Supreme Court can be said to be a 'mistake apparent from the record'? Both, the Tribunal and the High Court were right in holding that such a mistake can be said to be a 'mistake app…

Philips India Limited vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata

The appeal is allowed and the order

ITAT/238/2017HC Calcutta17 Nov 2021

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 254Section 260ASection 37Section 37(1)

…they specifically placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case 5 of ICDS. The assessee placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme court in Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. 305 ITR 227 for the proposition that non-consideration of a decision of the jurisdictional high court or the Hon’ble Supreme Court is a mistake apparent from records. Those were the contentions raised by the assessee before the tribunal. The tribunal was not inclined to accept the same and dismissed the miscellaneous application. Thus, aggrieved by…

Rockline Developers P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 9(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, ground “A” raised in the appeal by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 6595/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Nov 2021AY 2011-12
Section 115JSection 80Section 80I

…18.07. 2017. 2. CIT vs. Akshay Textile Trading & Agencies Pvt Ltd 304 ITR 401 (Bom). 3. CIT vs. Adbhut Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. (2011) 338 ITR 94 (Bom)" Furthermore, we note that Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT vs Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd., 305 ITR 227 (SC) has expounded that non- consideration of jurisdictional High Court decision can render a decision of the Tribunal suffering from mistake apparent from record. 13. Furthermore, we note that honourable Supreme Court in the case of Kapurchand Shrimal v CIT, 131 ITR 451 (SC) had expounded that it is the duty of the appellate authority to correc…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited

ITA/153/2019HC Rajasthan08 Nov 2021

Bench: AKIL KURESHI,REKHA BORANA

…mitted by inferior tribunals. A writ can similarly be issued where, in the exercise of the jurisdiction conferred on it, the Tribunal acts illegally or improperly. (Assistant Commissioner, Income Tax, Rajkot vs. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd: (2008) 14 SCC 171 and Syed Yakoob vs. K.S. Radhakrishnan: AIR 1964 SC 477). A writ of certiorari can be issued in the case of illegal exercise of jurisdiction, and also to correct errors of law apparent on the face of the record, even though they do not go to jurisdiction. It is only errors of law apparent on the face of the record, and not errors of fact tho…

Siro Clinpharm P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO RG 3(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 847/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2021AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Assessment year: 2011-12
Section 143(3)Section 92BSection 92C(3)

…fore, the applicability of the non-jurisdictional High Court is never absolute, without exceptions and as a matter of course. That is the principle implicit in Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgment in the case of ACIT Vs Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd [(2008) 305 ITR 227 (SC)] wherein Their Lordships have upheld the plea that “non-consideration of a decision of Jurisdictional Court or of the Supreme Court can be said to be a mistake apparent from the record”. The decisions of Hon’ble non-jurisdictional High Courts are thus placed at a level certainly below the Hon’ble High Court, and it’s a conscious call that is…

B R Agrotech Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-4(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 6247/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Sept 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 6244/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6245/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 6246/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 6247/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 M/S B R Agrotech Ltd., Vs Acit, 1505, Vikram Tower, Rajendra Circle-4(1), Place, New Delhi-110008 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcb3432F Assessee By : Sh. S. S. Nagar, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Alka Gautam, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.06.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 02.09.2021

For Appellant: Sh. S. S. Nagar, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Alka Gautam, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 154

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Amit Shukla, Judicial Member Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member (Through Video Conferencing) ITA No. 6244/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 ITA No. 6245/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 ITA No. 6246/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 ITA No. 6247/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 M/s B R Agrotech Ltd., Vs ACIT, 1505, Vikram Tower, Rajendra Circle-4(1), Place, New Delhi-110008 New Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AABCB3432F Assessee by : Sh. S. S. Nagar, Adv. Revenue by : Ms. Alka Gautam, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 28.06.2021 Date of…

B R Agrotech Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-4(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 6246/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Sept 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 6244/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6245/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 6246/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 6247/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 M/S B R Agrotech Ltd., Vs Acit, 1505, Vikram Tower, Rajendra Circle-4(1), Place, New Delhi-110008 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcb3432F Assessee By : Sh. S. S. Nagar, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Alka Gautam, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.06.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 02.09.2021

For Appellant: Sh. S. S. Nagar, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Alka Gautam, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 154

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Amit Shukla, Judicial Member Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member (Through Video Conferencing) ITA No. 6244/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 ITA No. 6245/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 ITA No. 6246/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 ITA No. 6247/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 M/s B R Agrotech Ltd., Vs ACIT, 1505, Vikram Tower, Rajendra Circle-4(1), Place, New Delhi-110008 New Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AABCB3432F Assessee by : Sh. S. S. Nagar, Adv. Revenue by : Ms. Alka Gautam, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 28.06.2021 Date of…

B R Agrotech Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-4(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 6245/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Sept 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 6244/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6245/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 6246/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 6247/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 M/S B R Agrotech Ltd., Vs Acit, 1505, Vikram Tower, Rajendra Circle-4(1), Place, New Delhi-110008 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcb3432F Assessee By : Sh. S. S. Nagar, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Alka Gautam, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.06.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 02.09.2021

For Appellant: Sh. S. S. Nagar, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Alka Gautam, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 154

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Amit Shukla, Judicial Member Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member (Through Video Conferencing) ITA No. 6244/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 ITA No. 6245/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 ITA No. 6246/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 ITA No. 6247/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 M/s B R Agrotech Ltd., Vs ACIT, 1505, Vikram Tower, Rajendra Circle-4(1), Place, New Delhi-110008 New Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AABCB3432F Assessee by : Sh. S. S. Nagar, Adv. Revenue by : Ms. Alka Gautam, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 28.06.2021 Date of…

B R Agrotech Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-4(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 6244/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Sept 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 6244/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6245/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 6246/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 6247/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 M/S B R Agrotech Ltd., Vs Acit, 1505, Vikram Tower, Rajendra Circle-4(1), Place, New Delhi-110008 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcb3432F Assessee By : Sh. S. S. Nagar, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Alka Gautam, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.06.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 02.09.2021

For Appellant: Sh. S. S. Nagar, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Alka Gautam, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 154

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Amit Shukla, Judicial Member Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member (Through Video Conferencing) ITA No. 6244/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 ITA No. 6245/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 ITA No. 6246/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 ITA No. 6247/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 M/s B R Agrotech Ltd., Vs ACIT, 1505, Vikram Tower, Rajendra Circle-4(1), Place, New Delhi-110008 New Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AABCB3432F Assessee by : Sh. S. S. Nagar, Adv. Revenue by : Ms. Alka Gautam, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 28.06.2021 Date of…