Berger Paints India Ltd. v. CIT

266 ITR 99Supreme Court of India2004#546 most cited

What is Berger Paints India Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

The Revenue cannot take a conflicting stand from what it had earlier accepted in a previous assessment year without compelling justification. This principle of consistency applies to various issues, including the treatment of customs duty in closing inventory.

175

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2006 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Berger Paints India Ltd. v. CIT · 266 ITR 99 · rule of consistency · Revenue conflicting stand · Section 147 reassessment · customs duty in closing inventory · accepted position · Section 143(3) assessment · arbitrary reassessments · consistency in tax assessment

Also reported as

135 Taxmann 586258 CTR 329

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 251(2)Section 69ASection 142(1)Section 22Section 255(4)

Issues it is cited on

put to usesection 92brule of consistencymost appropriate methodsection 92ca(3)arm's length pricesection 40a(3)mercantile system of accountingpermanent establishmentsection 43bsection 40atransfer pricing adjustment

Judgments citing Berger Paints India Ltd. v. CIT

MENAKURU SUKUMAR REDDY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT(A), CHENNAI

ITA 993/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Mar 2026AY 2017-18
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 251(2)Section 69A

…PAGE-2 :-2-: ITA Nos: 991, 992, 993, 1639 & 1644/Chny/2025 The present batch of appeals comprises ITA Nos.991 to 993/Chny/2025 pertaining to the Assessment Years 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18, which have been preferred by the assessee. Further, ITA Nos.1639 and 1664/Chny/2025 relating to the Assessment Years 2015-16 and 2017-18 have been preferred by the Revenue. Since common issues are involved in these appeals, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 2. At the outset, we find that there is a delay of 04 days in filing the appeal by th…

MENAKURU SUKUMAR REDDY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT(A), CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 992/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. P. Murali Mohana Rao, CAFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 251(2)Section 69A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एस एस "व"वने" र"व, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी एस. आर. रघुनाथा, लेखा सद"य के सम$BEFORE SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.: 991, 992 & 993/Chny/2025 "नधा%रण वष% / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 Menakuru Sukumar Reddy, DCIT, 8-2-696-697, Road No.2, vs. Central Circle -3(4), Banjara Hills, Chennai. Hyderabad – 500 034. [PAN: AABHM-8414-M] (अपीलाथ'/Appellant) (()यथ'/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.: 1639 & 1644/Chny/2025 "नधा%रण वष% /…

MENAKURU SUKUMAR REDDY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT(A), CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 991/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. P. Murali Mohana Rao, CAFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 251(2)Section 69A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एस एस "व"वने" र"व, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी एस. आर. रघुनाथा, लेखा सद"य के सम$BEFORE SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.: 991, 992 & 993/Chny/2025 "नधा%रण वष% / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 Menakuru Sukumar Reddy, DCIT, 8-2-696-697, Road No.2, vs. Central Circle -3(4), Banjara Hills, Chennai. Hyderabad – 500 034. [PAN: AABHM-8414-M] (अपीलाथ'/Appellant) (()यथ'/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.: 1639 & 1644/Chny/2025 "नधा%रण वष% /…

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. MENAKURU SUKUMAR REDDY , CHENNAI

ITA 1644/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 991, 992 & 993/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 Menakuru Sukumar Reddy, 8-2-696-697, Road No.2, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad - 500 034. [Pan: Aabhm-8414-M] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Dcit, Vs. Central Circle -3(4), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1639 & 1644/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2017-18 Acit, Central Circle -3(4), Chennai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Menakuru Sukumar Reddy, Vs. 8-2-696-697, Road No.2, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad - 500 034. [Pan: Aabhm-8414-M] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. P. Murali Mohana Rao, Ca Department By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.12.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 02.03.2026 आदेश /Order Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am : :-2-:

For Appellant: Shri. P. Murali Mohana Rao, CAFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 251(2)Section 69A

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'ए' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'A' BENCH, CHENNAI श्री एस एस विश्वनेत्र रवि, न्यायिक सदस्य एवं श्री एस. आर. रघुनाथा, लेखा सदस्य के समक्षBEFORE SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.: 991, 992 & 993/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 Menakuru Sukumar Reddy, 8-2-696-697, Road No.2, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad - 500 034. [PAN: AABHM-8414-M] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) DCIT, vs. Central Circle -3(4), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.: 1639 & 1644/Chny…

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. MENAKURU SUKUMAR REDDY, CHENNAI

ITA 1639/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 991, 992 & 993/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 Menakuru Sukumar Reddy, 8-2-696-697, Road No.2, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad - 500 034. [Pan: Aabhm-8414-M] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Dcit, Vs. Central Circle -3(4), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1639 & 1644/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2017-18 Acit, Central Circle -3(4), Chennai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Menakuru Sukumar Reddy, Vs. 8-2-696-697, Road No.2, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad - 500 034. [Pan: Aabhm-8414-M] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. P. Murali Mohana Rao, Ca Department By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.12.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 02.03.2026 आदेश /Order Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am : :-2-:

For Appellant: Shri. P. Murali Mohana Rao, CAFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 251(2)Section 69A

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'ए' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'A' BENCH, CHENNAI श्री एस एस विश्वनेत्र रवि, न्यायिक सदस्य एवं श्री एस. आर. रघुनाथा, लेखा सदस्य के समक्षBEFORE SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.: 991, 992 & 993/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 Menakuru Sukumar Reddy, 8-2-696-697, Road No.2, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad - 500 034. [PAN: AABHM-8414-M] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) DCIT, vs. Central Circle -3(4), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.: 1639 & 1644/Chny…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(4), GUWAHATI vs. M/S. S.R.K.M. STEELS (P) LTD, GUWAHATI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 274/GTY/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati18 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Manomohan Das, Jm Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(4) M/S S.R.K.M Steels (P) Ltd. Room No.707, 7Th Floor, Aayakar M/S Srkm Steels (P) Ltd. Lokhra Bhawan Poorva, G.S. Road, Road, P.O. Sawkuchi, Guwahati- Vs. Guwahati-781005, Assam 781034, Assam (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aalcs5046E Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Ar Revenue By : Shri Santosh Kumar Karnani, Dr Date Of Hearing: 17.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 18.12.2025

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Santosh Kumar karnani, DR
Section 133(6)

…ollowed and accepted and there is no acceptable reason to differ with it, the doctrine of consistency would come into play. The method of accounting cannot be rejected." Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Berger Paints India Ltd. vs. CIT((2004) 266 ITR 99 at page 103 (SC)], has noted with approval, the observations of the Hon'ble Special Bench of the ITAT in the case of Indian Communication Network Pvt. Ltd. vs. IAC (1994) 206 ITR (AT) 96 (Delhi)]. At page 114, it observed that: "Before we part with the ground, we cannot help feeling that the litigation between the parties could have been avoided s…

UMAR DARAJ,MEERUT vs. ITO WARD-1(2)(4), MEERUT

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3095/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Umar Daraj, Vs. Ito, Ward 1(2)(4), 153/1, Hapur Road, Meerut. Umar Nagar, Meerut – 250 001 (Uttar Pradesh). (Pan : Ainpd8766H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sumit Lal Chandani, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, Citdr Date Of Hearing : 17.09.2025 Date Of Order : 10.12.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman:

For Appellant: Shri Sumit Lal Chandani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CITDR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 151Section 40A

…v. CIT (2008) 8 SCC 739 held (paras 21–23) that once Revenue has accepted a particular treatment, it cannot, in a subsequent year, selectively appeal or deviate without proper reasons or fresh material. 8 Similarly, in Berger Paints India Ltd. v. CIT (2004) 266 ITR 99, the Supreme Court upheld that the Revenue cannot later take a conflicting stand from what it had earlier accepted, unless compelling justification is recorded. These principles have been repeatedly followed by Tribunals and High Courts to strike down arbitrary reassessments that depart from earlier accepted positions without explanation. 7. Apply…

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above and the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 901/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Srivastava, Spl. Counsel for the Department
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 32Section 35Section 43B

…nos.8 to 10 raised by the Revenue. 67. With regard to Ground No.11 regarding customs duty included in closing inventory, we observe that this issue is covered in favour by order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Berger Paints India Limited v. CIT : 266 ITR 99 and also, covered in favour of the assessee in its own case by order of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court for:  AY 1999-2000 in ITA No. 250/2005 (Para 12-13)  AY 2000-01 in ITA No. 976/2005 (Para 3)  AY 2001-02 in ITA No. 519/2010 (Para 4)  AY 2005-06 in ITA No. 171/2012 (Para 3)  AY 2006-07 in ITA No. 381/2016 (Para 3) We further observe that the…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above and the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1024/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Srivastava, Spl. Counsel for the Department
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 32Section 35Section 43B

…nos.8 to 10 raised by the Revenue. 67. With regard to Ground No.11 regarding customs duty included in closing inventory, we observe that this issue is covered in favour by order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Berger Paints India Limited v. CIT : 266 ITR 99 and also, covered in favour of the assessee in its own case by order of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court for:  AY 1999-2000 in ITA No. 250/2005 (Para 12-13)  AY 2000-01 in ITA No. 976/2005 (Para 3)  AY 2001-02 in ITA No. 519/2010 (Para 4)  AY 2005-06 in ITA No. 171/2012 (Para 3)  AY 2006-07 in ITA No. 381/2016 (Para 3) We further observe that the…

FUTURE FIRST INFO SERVICES PRIVATE LTD. ,DELHI vs. AO CIRCLE-7(1), DELHI

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

ITA 672/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 92D

…engaged in performing back-office support functions. The Ld. AR placing reliance on the following decisions, prayed for upholding the rule of consistency:  Radhasoami Satsang (193 ITR 321),  Excel Industries Limited 358 ITR 295,  Berger Paints India Ltd. (266 ITR 99),  Union of India Vs. Kaumudini Narayan Dalal & Other (249 ITR 219),  Brintons Carpets Asia P Ltd. (ITA No.1296/PN/10)  Management Structure & Systems (2010) 41 DTR 426)  Bengal Tiger Line Pte. Ltd. [2020] 121 taxmann.com 165 (Chennai Trib.) 4.2 The Ld. AR further contended that the services provided by the appellant assessee were not compara…

ADITYA BIRLA FINANCE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX - 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 4821/MUM/2024[AY 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2025
For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar & Ms. S.Jayaram, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, (CIT DR)
Section 143(3)Section 32Section 43BSection 80G

…ctness in the case of the other assessee without just cause. In\nsupport of the aforesaid conclusion, gainful reference can be made to the decision of\nthe Hon'ble Supreme Court in Berger Paints India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-\ntax [2004] 135 Taxman 586/266 ITR 99 (SC)\n19. As regards the submission of the Revenue that the amount of Rs.67,52,67,157 is\nmerely the difference between the purchase consideration and the net assets acquired\nof the amalgamating company and the goodwill was nothing but a balancing factor\nwhile merging the accounts of the amalgamating company into the accounts of the\nassessee, w…

K.R.PULP AND PAPERS LTD.,DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-19, DELHI

ITA 4456/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 80ISection 92C

…he principle of consistency, the adjustments made during the year under appeal deserves to be deleted. For this, he placed reliance on the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Excel Industries Ltd. 358 ITR 295 (SC) and CIT vs Berger Paints 266 ITR 99 (SC) and certain other judgements which are placed at page 29 in para 40 of its written submissions filed during the course of hearing. 13. It is thus, submitted by Ld.AR that the adjustment made of INR 32,68,31,286/- to the sale price of electricity from eligible unit to non-eligible unit deserves to be deleted. 14. With regard to the adjustmen…

K R PULP AND PAPERS LTD. ,DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-19 , DELHI

ITA 755/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 801ASection 801A(4)(iv)Section 80ISection 92C

…he principle of consistency, the adjustments made during the year under appeal deserves to be deleted. For this, he placed reliance on the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Excel Industries Ltd. 358 ITR 295 (SC) and CIT vs Berger Paints 266 ITR 99 (SC) and certain other judgements which are placed at page 29 in para 40 of its written submissions filed during the course of hearing. 13. It is thus, submitted by Ld.AR that the adjustment made of INR 32,68,31,286/- to the sale price of electricity from eligible unit to non-eligible unit deserves to be deleted. 14. With regard to the adjustment…

GOWTHAM RESIDENTIAL JUNIOR COLLEGE,VIJAYAWADA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 26/VIZ/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam24 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.25 & 26/Viz/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2013-14) Gowtham Residential Junior College V. Asst. Cit-Central Circle Vijayawada 1-87, Gudavalli Village Gudavalli, Vijayawada – 521104 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aaefg4399L] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 255(4)

…I.T.A.Nos.25 & 26/VIZ/2022 Gowtham Residential Junior College आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, धिशाखापटणम पीठ, धिशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM “DIVISION” BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM (HYBRID HEARING) श्री रिीश सूद ,न्याधयक सदस्य एिं श्री एस बालाकृष्णन, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.25 & 26/VIZ/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2013-14) Gowtham Residential Junior College v. Asst. CIT-Central Circle Vijayawada 1-87, Gudavalli Village Gudavalli, Vijayawada – 521104 Andhra Pradesh [PA…

GOWTHAM RESIDENTIAL JUNIOR COLLEGE,VIJAYAWADA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 25/VIZ/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam24 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.25 & 26/Viz/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2013-14) Gowtham Residential Junior College V. Asst. Cit-Central Circle Vijayawada 1-87, Gudavalli Village Gudavalli, Vijayawada – 521104 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aaefg4399L] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 255(4)

…I.T.A.Nos.25 & 26/VIZ/2022 Gowtham Residential Junior College आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, धिशाखापटणम पीठ, धिशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM “DIVISION” BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM (HYBRID HEARING) श्री रिीश सूद ,न्याधयक सदस्य एिं श्री एस बालाकृष्णन, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.25 & 26/VIZ/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2013-14) Gowtham Residential Junior College v. Asst. CIT-Central Circle Vijayawada 1-87, Gudavalli Village Gudavalli, Vijayawada – 521104 Andhra Pradesh [PA…

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

…ree Cement Limited vs. ACIT is not open to the 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…

REXEL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

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

ITA 981/PUN/2024[AY 2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 May 2025
Section 32(1)Section 43(1)Section 43(6)

…ctness in the case of the other assessee\nwithout just cause. In support of the aforesaid conclusion, gainful\nreference can be made to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in\nBerger Paints India Lid. v. Commissioner of Income-tax [2004] 135\nТахтап 586/266 ITR 99 (SC)\n19. As regards the submission of the Revenue that the amount of Rs.\n67,52,67,157 is merely the difference between the purchase\nconsideration and the net assets acquired of the amalgamating\ncompany and the goodwill was nothing but a balancing factor while\nmerging the accounts of the amalgamating company into the accounts\nof the assessee,…

VIMAL KUMAR DHALL,PUNJAB vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-VI(1), LUDHIANA, PUNJAB

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 809/CHANDI/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Apr 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: The Cit(A), About Three Years Ago & Without Giving Any Fresh Hearing/Opportunity Or Asking For Another Detail, The Dismissal Of Appeal Is Not In Order. That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Addition Of 2. Rs. 68,07,313/-As Made By The Assessing Officer By Not Allowing The Benefit Of Deduction Of Interest U/S 57 Of The Act As Claimed. 3. That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Failed To Appreciate That In Previous Year & In Later Years, The Said Deduction Of Interest As Paid To The Parties Have Been Considered & Allowed By Way Of Order

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271A(1)(d)Section 57

…rgued that the said deduction needs to be allowed as per the following judgments since in the earlier years and later years, deduction u/s 57 had been allowed:- i). Radhasoami Satsang Vs CIT (1992) 193 ITR 321 (SC). II). Berger Paints India Ltd. Vs CIT (2004) 266 ITR 99 (SC). iii). CIT Vs Leader Valves Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 273 ( P&H). 6.5 It was further argued before us that the Ld.CIT(A) has wrongly stated in para-1, page 12 of the order that no confirmation or evidence has been filed in proof of interest having been paid to various parties, 5 which finding is incorrect in view of the confirmed copies of accoun…

TATA TELESERVICES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-76(1), NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1057/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. M. Balaganesh & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Tata Vs. Assistant Commissioner Teleserviceslimited New Of Income Tax Circle 76(1) Delhi Districtcentral Laxmi Taxation Department Nagar New Delhi 110092 M/S Tata Teleservices Limited 2A, Old Ishwar Nahar Mathura Road New Delhi 110065 (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 191Section 194Section 194HSection 201Section 201(1)

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘G’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s Tata Vs. Assistant Commissioner TeleservicesLimited New Of Income Tax Circle 76(1) Delhi DistrictCentral Laxmi Taxation Department Nagar New Delhi 110092 M/s Tata Teleservices Limited 2A, Old Ishwar Nahar Mathura Road New Delhi 110065 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Ms Ananya Kapoor Advocate Respondent by Ms. Jaya Chaudhary CIT DR Date of hearing: 14/10/2024 Date of Pronouncement: 11/12/2024 ORDER PER SUDHIR KUMAR, JM: This appe…

RAJESH KHANNA,NEELKANTH PLYWOOD, YAMUNANAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, INCOME TAX OFFICER, YAMUNANAGAR

In the result, the assessee's appeal in ITA

ITA 62/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Goel, CAFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT Sr.DR
Section 148Section 69A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ , च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH ‘B’ CHANDIGARH BEFORE: SHRI A.D.JAIN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 62/CHD/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year. : 2018-19 Shri Rajesh Khanna, Vs The ITO, Neelkanth Plywood, Khazuri Road, Ward - 3, Yamuna Nagar. Yamuna Nagar. "थायी लेखा सं./PAN /TAN No: AGJPK1206H अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 230/CHD/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year. : 2018-19 The ITO, Vs Shri Rajesh Khanna, Ward - 3, Neelkanth Plywood Khazuri Road, Yamuna Nagar. Y…

Showing 1–20 of 175 · Page 1 of 9

...