What is B.F.Varghese v. State of Kerala authority for?

Revenue cannot accept a lower court's decision for one assessee and challenge its correctness for another assessee without just cause. Consistency in approach is required when facts are not different.

How many judgments cite B.F.Varghese v. State of Kerala?

38 judgments on BharatTax cite B.F.Varghese v. State of Kerala (254 ITR 606), spanning 2006 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does B.F.Varghese v. State of Kerala come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 115BBE, Section 133(6), Section 144B, Section 147, Section 148, Section 148A.

B.F.Varghese v. State of Kerala (254 ITR 606)

SUNRISE STRUCTURALS & ENGINEERING PVT LTD,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT/ DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4 NAGPUR, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 167/NAG/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur10 Apr 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Roysunrise Structural & Acit/Dcit, Circle-4, Engineering P. Ltd., A10, Vs Nagpur Hingna Midc, Nagpur (Urban), Nagpur-440016 Pan : Aaccs 3220 M Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri K.P. Dewani, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.04.2026 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri K.P. Dewani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 234BSection 250Section 69C

…This position is accepted by revenue in the case of associate company in respect to same party and similar fact position. Contrary view on same facts is not permissible in terms of law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Narendra Doshi reported at 254 ITR 606 (SC). No adverse evidence brought on record to discredit legal evidence placed on record to demonstrate genuineness of transaction. Addition made is on suspicion and is impermissible. G) To verify similar transaction of purchase of goods by group concern M/s Sanvijay Rolling & Engineering Ltd from M/s Dadhichi Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd. notice u/s 14…

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BANGUR NAGAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee - appellant in ITA No

ITA 1517/JPR/2024[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Jun 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Dilip B. Desai, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 254Section 36(1)(va)Section 80Section 801A

…Revenue to accept the judgement in the case of one assessee and challenge its correctness in the case of other assessee without just cause. Said view is also upheld in Berger Paints India Ltd. -vs.- CIT (2004) 266 ITR 99 (SC) & CIT vs Narendra Doshi (2002) 254 ITR 606 (SC). Thus, having gone through the assessment orders passed in the case of the assessee by the different Assessing Officers and Transfer Pricing officers from AY 2013-14 onwards, in all the orders, it has been accepted by department that Pond ash and Fly ash which are generated by thermal power plant & are used in manufacture of cement and s…

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT vs. S D MATERIAL HANDLERS PRIVATE LIMITED, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 499/SRT/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Dec 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.499/Srt/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Assistant Commissioner Of M/S S D Material Handlers Pvt. Ltd. Income-Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Surat Vs. 405-408, Shivalik Western, L.P. Room No.612, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Savani Road, Adajan Adajan Bhavan, Near Majura Gate, Bo, Surat-395009 Surat-395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaccd 3481B (अपीलाथ" /Assessee) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sapnesh R Sheth, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(va)

…ve been made by the Supreme Court in the following cases : ITA No.499/SRT/2023 A.Y. 13-14 M/s S D Material Handlers Pvt. Ltd. (1) Union of India v. Kaumudini Narayan Dalal [2001] 117 Taxman 375/249 ITR 219 (SC) (2) CIT v. Narendra Doshi [2002] 122 Taxman 717/254 ITR 606 (SC) (3) CIT v. Shivsagar Estate [2002] 124 Taxman 606/257 ITR 59 (SC) 31. The above judgements of the Supreme Court show the anxiety to prevent the income- tax authorities from taking different stand in the case of different assessee in respect of the same issue or taking different stands in the case of the same assessee for different assessment…

IDBI BANK LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, LTU CIRCLE-1, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 715/MUM/2023[1994-95]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Aug 2023AY 1994-95

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyal & Idbi Bank Limited, 22Nd Floor, Idbi Tower, Wtc Complex, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400 005 ...... Appellant Vs. Acit/Dcit-Ltu, 29Th Floor, Centre No.1, World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400 005 Pan – Aabci8842G ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri C. Naresh, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri K. C. Selvamani, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 154(7)Section 244ASection 250

…e. In Narendra Doshi v. CIT (Unreported) the Madhya Pradesh High Court followed the Gujarat High Court’s view and allowed interest on interest. The Supreme Court affirmed the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s decision in CIT v. Narendra Doshi [2002] 122 Taxman 717/ 254 ITR 606 without any discussion. It has impliedly approved the Gujarat High Court’s decision in D.J. Works’ case (supra). So many High Courts have ruled that interest is payable on refund of interest. When so many High Courts have held the same view, it appears preferable to follow the same view. However, fuelling the controversy, the Bombay High Court ha…

ACIT,, NEW DELHI vs. SMT. VEENA MIRDHA,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1190/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Anil Bhalla, CAFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Takyar, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…not apply to income-tax proceedings. Suffice is to say that when the facts are not different it is necessary to maintain consistency as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Kumudini Narayan Dalal 249 ITR 219 (SC) and CIT vs. Narendra Doshi 254 ITR 606 (SC). 11. The contention of the Revenue that Explanation I to section 147 has been overlooked is devoid of any merit. The provisions contained in the present Explanation I were contained earlier in the then Explanation 2 prior to substitution of section 147 w.e.f. 01.04.1989. While interpreting the Explanation 2 the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court i…

SURTI CHEMICALS P.LTD,DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-24(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6000/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year: 2013-14

Section 23Section 24

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘G’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2013-14 Surti Chemicals P. Ltd., Vs. ACIT, Circle-24(2), 1/26, Gali No.13, Vishwas New Delhi Nagar, New Delhi. Delhi-1100 32 PAN :AAECS1158G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Anil Garg, Adv. Respondent by Shri Umesh Takyar, Sr. DR Date of hearing 31.03.2022 Date of pronouncement 11.04.2022 ORDER PER ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER: The appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 01.08.2018 of the learned Com…

ACIT-8 (1) (1), MUMBAI vs. ROYAL WESTERN INDIA TURF CLUB LIMITED, MUMBAI

ITA 5754/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar () & Shri Ravish Sood () Acit-8(1)(1) M/S Royal Western Turf Club Room No. 624, 6Th Floor, Vs. Limited, Mahalaxmi Race Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Course, K.K. Marg, Mahalaxmi Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 034

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mahendra Ahuja. Sr. D.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…(SC) v. DCIT vs United Vanaspati (275ITR124) (AT) (Chandigarh ITAT) vi. Union of India vs Kumudini N. Dalai 249 ITR 219 (SC) vii. Union of India vs Satish Pannalal Shah 249 ITR 221 ix. B.F.Varghese vs State of Kerala 72 ITR 726 (Ker.) x. CIT vs Narendra Doshi 254 ITR 606 (SC) xi. CIT vs Shivsagar Estate 257 ITR 59 (SC) xii. Pradip Ramanlal Seth vs UOI204 ITR 866 (Guj.) xiii. Radhaswamy Satsang vs CIT 193 ITR 321 (SC) xiv. Aggarwal warehousing & Leasing Ltd. 257 ITR 235 (MP) 2.5. The sum and substance of the aforesaid judicial pronouncements is that on the basis of principle of judicial discipline, consistency ha…

M/S ELGI ULTRA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2023/CHNY/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Jan 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G.Manjunatha

For Appellant: Ms. R.Anita, Addl.CITFor Respondent: 23.12.2021

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 244A

…e are of the considered view that there is no merit in arguments taken 9 by the assessee in light of decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s.Sandvik Asia Ltd. Vs CIT (supra) and also the decision in the case of CIT VS. Narendra Dosh (2002) 254 ITR 606(SC). 9. Be that as it may, the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. M/s. Syndicate Bank in ITA No.582 of 2013 dated 07.10.2020 has considered identical issue and after considering decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sandvik Asia Ltd. vs CIT (supra) observed that although, the Hon'ble Supreme Court very clearly…

DCIT 8(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. ROYAL WESTERN INDUA TURF CLUB LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3237/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Smt Mamta Bansal, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Salis Kapoor

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…on of India vs Kumudini N. Dalai 249 ITR 219 (SC) ITA Nos. 3237 /Mum/2017 M/s. Royal Western India turf Club Ltd., Mumbai. viii Union of India vs Satish Pannalal Shah 249 ITR 221 ix. B.F.Varghese vs State of Kerala 72 ITR 726 (Ker.) x. CIT vs Narendra Doshi 254 ITR 606 (SC) xi. CIT vs Shivsagar Estate 257 ITR 59 (SC) xii. Pradip Ramanlal Seth vs UOI 204 ITR 866 (Guj.) xiii. Radhaswamy Satsang vs CIT 193 ITR 321 (SC) xiv. Aggarwal warehousing & Leasing Ltd. 257 ITR 235 (MP) 2.5. The sum and substance of the aforesaid judicial pronouncements is that on the basis of principle of judicial discipline, consistency ha…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. SYNDICATE BANK

In the result, we do not find any merit in this appeal, the

ITA/582/2013HC Karnataka07 Oct 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 154Section 243(1)Section 244(1)Section 246ASection 260Section 260A

…ithout any authority of law, the revenue must compensate the assessee. Learned counsel for the assessee has also invited the attention of this court to a three judge bench decision of the Supreme Court in ‘COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. NARENDRA DOSHI’, 254 ITR 606 and has submitted that the decisions of Gujarat High Court in ‘D.J.WORKS vs. DEPUTY CIT’, (1992) 195 ITR 227, which was followed by the same High Court in ‘CHIMANLAL S PATEL VS. CIT’, (1994) 210 ITR 419, wherein it has been held that the revenue is liable to pay interest on the amount of interest, which had to be paid to the assessee but h…

RAJ PAL SINGH vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HARYANA

In the result, this appeal fails and is, therefore, dismissed

C.A. No.-002416-002416 - 2010Supreme Court25 Aug 2020

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI

Section 256(1)Section 4Section 45Section 6

…ion by the Government. The learned counsel has relied upon the following observations in Berger Paints India Ltd. (supra):- “In view of the judgments of this court in Union of India v. Kaumudini Narayan Dalal [2001] 249 ITR 219; CIT v. Narendra Doshi [2002] 254 ITR 606 and CIT v. Shivsagar Estate [2002] 257 ITR 59, the principle established is that if the Revenue has not challenged the correctness of the law laid down by the High Court and has accepted it in the case of one assessee, then it is not open to the Revenue to challenge its correctness in the case of other assessees, without just cause.” 63 44. The…