B.F.Varghese v. State of Kerala

254 ITR 606Supreme Court of India2002#3092 most cited

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

Judicial discipline requires consistency in applying a legal view taken in a prior year, especially when no contrary material is presented. Finality to litigation is a principle that must be followed.

38

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2006 to 2026.

Also referred to as

B.F.Varghese v. State of Kerala · judicial discipline · consistency · finality to litigation · contrary material · legal view · assessment procedure

Sections most often in play

Section 115BBESection 133(6)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 234BSection 234C

Issues it is cited on

section 143(1)companysection 143(3)personindianfactotal incomebusinessinterest

Judgments citing B.F.Varghese v. State of Kerala

Dcm Shriram Consolidated Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5172/DEL/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Dec 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Dinodia, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subhash Verma, Sr. DR
Section 244ASection 80

…ant the interest. 4. That the CIT(A) also erred in not giving a direction to the Assessing Officer to grant interest on interest as per provisions of section 244A of the Act in terms of decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of CIT Vs. Narendra Doshi 254 ITR 606 (SC) and Sandvik Asia Ltd. Vs. CIT and Others 280 ITR 643 (SC) for the reason that Assessing Officer had not given effect to the order of Tribunal dated 16.10.2009 within a reasonable period and had wrongly withheld the amount of refund, causing financial hardship and interest loss to the appellant. 5. That the CIT(A) also failed to appreciate th…

M/S Cargo Motors Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4439/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Nov 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year: 2012-13 Cargo Motors Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, 1/9-B, Jindal House, Circle-5(2), बनाम/ Asaf Ali Road, C.R. Building, Vs. Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110002 ("नधा%&रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaacc2744C

Section 14A

…vi. DCIT vs United Vanaspati (275 ITR 124) (AT)(Chandigarh ITAT) vii. Union of India vs Kumudini N. Dalal 249 ITR 219 (SC) 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) The sum and substance of the aforesaid judicial pronouncements is that on the basis of principle of judicial discipline, consistency has…

Asst CIT 8(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Royal Western India Truf Club Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are dismissed

ITA 5570/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D T Garasia & Shri N K Pradhan

For Appellant: Shri Purushottam KumarFor Respondent: Shri Salil Kapoor, Ms. Saumya Singh &
Section 143(3)Section 263

…) vi. DCIT vs United Vanaspati (275 ITR 124) AT) (Chandigarh ITAT) vii. Union of India vs Kumudini N. Dalai 249 ITR 219 (SC) 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 h…

Asst CIT 8(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Royal Western India Truf Club Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are dismissed

ITA 5569/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D T Garasia & Shri N K Pradhan

For Appellant: Shri Purushottam KumarFor Respondent: Shri Salil Kapoor, Ms. Saumya Singh &
Section 143(3)Section 263

…) vi. DCIT vs United Vanaspati (275 ITR 124) AT) (Chandigarh ITAT) vii. Union of India vs Kumudini N. Dalai 249 ITR 219 (SC) 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 h…

Addl CIT 2(1), Mumbai vs. Gtl Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 5419/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

Section 10BSection 143(1)

…vi. DCIT vs United Vanaspati (275 ITR 124) (AT)(Chandigarh ITAT) vii. Union of India vs Kumudini N. Dalal 249 ITR 219 (SC) 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) The sum and substance of the aforesaid judicial pronouncements is that on the basis of principle of judicial discipline, consistency has to…

Shapoorji Pallanji and Company P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 3(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3053/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Mar 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S Shapoorji Pallonji & Co. Dcit, Ltd. Circle-3(3), बनाम/ Shapporji Pallonji Centre, Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Vs. 41/44 Minoo Desai Marg, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Colaba Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400005 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aaacs6994C

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…vi. DCIT vs United Vanaspati (275 ITR 124) (AT)(Chandigarh ITAT) vii. Union of India vs Kumudini N. Dalal 249 ITR 219 (SC) 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) 3.15. The sum and substance of the aforesaid judicial pronouncements is that on the basis of principle of judicial discipline, consistency h…

Quality Vmg Bus Depot Project, Mumbai vs. DCIT (TDS) 2(2)

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 4193/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Sept 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Pradhan

For Appellant: Shri K.B. DesaiFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar
Section 154Section 244A

…ound as all facts relating to such ground are available on record. Learned Authorised Representative also relied upon the following decisions in support of its claim of interest on interest. i) D.J. Works v/s DCIT, 195 ITR 227; and ii) CIT v/s Narendra Gosi, 254 ITR 606. 5. The learned Departmental Representative on the other hand relied upon the observations of the learned Commissioner (Appeals). 6. We have considered the submissions of the parties and perused the material available on record in the light of the decisions relied upon. As far as the factual aspect is concerned, there is no dispute 8 M/s. Quali…

A.C.I.T.19(2), Mumbai vs. Alka Kiritkumar Upadhyay, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA N0

ITA 2617/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Aug 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2617/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09) A.C.I.T. – 19(2), Smt. Alka Kiritkumar बनाम/ Room No. 315, 3 Rd Floor, Upadhyay, V. Piramal Chambers, Alka Bldg., 6T H Floor, Lalbaug, Parel, Santacruz (W), Mumbai – 400 012. Mumbai –400 054. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaapu0228Q (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Shri A. Ramachandran
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…vi. DCIT vs United Vanaspati (275 ITR 124) (AT)(Chandigarh ITAT) vii. Union of India vs Kumudini N. Dalal 249 ITR 219 (SC) 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) The sum and substance of the aforesaid judicial pronouncements is that on the basis of principle of judicial discipline, consistency has to…

Darshana B. Doshi, Mumbai vs. A.C.I.T. Circle 13(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 5462/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2008-09 Smt. Darshana B. Doshi Acit, Circle-13(3), 31, Broach Street, Devraj 430, Aayakar Bhavan, 4Th बनाम/ Ratanshi Marg, Iron Market, Floor, M.K. Marg, Vs. Masjid Bunder, Mumbai 400 020. Mumbai 400009. Pan. No. Aabpd7806Q (राज"व /Revenue ) ("नधा"रती /Assessee)

Section 10(34)

…vi. DCIT vs United Vanaspati (275 ITR 124) (AT)(Chandigarh ITAT) vii. Union of India vs Kumudini N. Dalal 249 ITR 219 (SC) 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) 5. The sum and substance of the aforesaid judicial pronouncements is that on the basis of principle of judicial discipline, consistency has…

ITO 9(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Kalypto Risk Technologies P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1275/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 May 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kochar

Section 143(3)Section 32

…vi. DCIT vs United Vanaspati (275 ITR 124) (AT)(Chandigarh ITAT) vii. Union of India vs Kumudini N. Dalal 249 ITR 219 (SC) 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) The sum and substance of the aforesaid judicial pronouncements is that on the basis of principle of judicial discipline, consistency has to…

Alka K. Upadhyaya, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 19(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6227/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Mar 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendraassessment Year-2007-08 Alka K. Upadhaya, Acit, 6-Alka Building, 15Th Road, Circle-19(2), बनाम/ South Avenue, Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. Santacruz (W), M.K.Road, Mumbai-400054 Mumbai-400020 Pan No.Aaapu0288Q (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 143(3)

…vi. DCIT vs United Vanaspati (275 ITR 124) (AT)(Chandigarh ITAT) vii. Union of India vs Kumudini N. Dalal 249 ITR 219 (SC) 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) The sum and substance of the aforesaid judicial pronouncements is that on the basis of principle of judicial discipline, consistency has to…

Preeti G Mehta, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 11(3)(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7557/MUM/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Mar 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year: 2004-05 Mrs. Preeti G Mehta, Income Tax Officer, 22, Bennett Villa, Ward-11(3)(2), बनाम/ 27, Wode House, Colaba, Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400001 M.K.Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 "नधा"रती / Assessee राज"व / Revenue P.A. No.Adrpm3856E

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 23Section 23(4)

…vi. DCIT vs United Vanaspati (275 ITR 124) (AT)(Chandigarh ITAT) vii. Union of India vs Kumudini N. Dalal 249 ITR 219 (SC) 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) 5 Mrs. Preeti G Mehta 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) The sum and substance of the aforesaid judicial pronouncements is that on the basis of principle of judicial discip…

Auto Finance Enterprises, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 12(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4458/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Mar 2016AY 2008-09
Section 143(3)

…vi. DCIT vs United Vanaspati (275 ITR 124) (AT)(Chandigarh ITAT) vii. Union of India vs Kumudini N. Dalal 249 ITR 219 (SC) 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) The sum and substance of the aforesaid judicial pronouncements is that on the basis of principle of judicial discipline, consistency has to…

ACIT CC 39, Mumbai vs. Laxmi Satyapal Jain, Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4726/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Feb 2016AY 2010-11
Section 143(3)

…vi. DCIT vs United Vanaspati (275 ITR 124) (AT)(Chandigarh ITAT) vii. Union of India vs Kumudini N. Dalal 249 ITR 219 (SC) 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) The sum and substance of the aforesaid judicial pronouncements is that on the basis of principle of judicial discipline, consistency has to…

E-City Investments & Holdings Co. Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. D.C.I.T. RG. 8(1) (OSD), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 8382/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2008-09 E-City Investments & Holdings Dcit, Company Private Limited, Range-8(1)(Osd), बनाम/ 844/4, Shah Industrial Estate, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Off. New Link Road, Opp. M.K. Road, Laxmi Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400020 Andheri (West), Mumbai-400053 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaace8030F "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Vijay Mehta राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By Mr.J. Saravanan -Dr

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

…vi. DCIT vs United Vanaspati (275 ITR 124) (AT)(Chandigarh ITAT) vii. Union of India vs Kumudini N. Dalal 249 ITR 219 (SC) 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. Agarwal warehousing & Leasing Ltd. 257 ITR 235 (MP) The sum and substance of the aforesaid judicial pronouncements is that on the basis of principle of judicial discipline, consistency has to…

R. Kundan & Co., Mumbai vs. ITO WD 14(3)(2), Mumbai

ITA 6143/MUM/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 132Section 5Section 6Section 6(1)(c)Section 9

…vi. DCIT vs United Vanaspati (275 ITR 124) (AT)(Chandigarh ITAT) vii. Union of India vs Kumudini N. Dalal 249 ITR 219 (SC) 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) 6.4. The sum and substance of the aforesaid decisions is that on the basis of principle of judicial discipline, 69 Mr. Binod Kumar Singh…

The Motor & General Finance Ltd. etc. etc vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-VI, New Delhi

ITA-35/2009HC Delhi30 Oct 2009
Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 254A

…e Tribunal was right in holding that interest was payable on delayed payments of interest. The question specifically refers to the Department‟s claim that the law allegedly does not provide for any such payment. xx xx xx Thi C t i N d D hi‟ (2002) 254 ITR 606 2009:DHC:4559-DB down by the Gujarat High Court, viz., that … The Revenue is liable to pay interest on the amount of interest which it should have paid to the assessee but has unjustifiably failed to do… the question has, as we find, been rightly answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. This is clearly a decision of th…

Sandvik Asia Ltd vs. Commnr.of Income Tax-I, Pune

In the result, the appeals stand allowed

C.A. No.-001337-001340 - 2005Supreme Court27 Jan 2006
For Respondent: Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Pune & Ors
Section 214Section 264

…distinguished based on various decisions which were never cited during the course of the hearing which were never put to counsel appearing. In this context, the High Court has failed to appreciate that this Court in the case of C.I.T. vs. Narendra Doshi, 254 ITR 606 (SC) had set out the two issues before itself, viz., whether when department had not challenged the correctness of the Gujarat High Court decisions it was bound by the principle laid down therein; Whether the Gujarat High Court had rightly laid down the principle that an assessee would be entitled to interest on interest. That sequitur to the…