Berger Paints India Ltd. v. CIT

266 ITR 99Supreme Court of India2004#530 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.

181

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,359 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)
Read the full judgment

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

Income Tax Officer, Yamuna Nagar vs. Rajesh Khanna, Yamuna Nagar

In the result, the assessee's appeal in ITA

ITA 230/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…

M/S. Idea Cellular Limited, Indore vs. The DCIT (TDS), Indore

Appeals are allowed

ITA 111/IND/2015[2013-14 (Quarter 4)]Status: DisposedITAT Indore01 Aug 2024

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 194Section 194HSection 194JSection 201(1)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, इंदौर "ायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 110/Ind/2015 (AY 2013-14 – Quarter-1, 2 & 3 of FY 2012-13) M/s Idea Cellular Ltd., DCIT (TDS), बनाम/ 139-140, Indore. Vs. Electronics Complex, Pardeshipura, Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) PAN: AAACB2100P / TAN: BPLI00953B Assessee by Shri Sumit Nema, Sr. Adv with Shri Gagan Tiwari, Adv Revenue by Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 31.07.2024 Date of Pronouncement 01.08.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench…

M/S. Idea Cellular Limited, Indore vs. The DCIT (TDS), Indore

Appeals are allowed

ITA 110/IND/2015[2013-14 (for first three quarter)]Status: DisposedITAT Indore01 Aug 2024

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 194Section 194HSection 194JSection 201(1)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, इंदौर "ायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 110/Ind/2015 (AY 2013-14 – Quarter-1, 2 & 3 of FY 2012-13) M/s Idea Cellular Ltd., DCIT (TDS), बनाम/ 139-140, Indore. Vs. Electronics Complex, Pardeshipura, Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) PAN: AAACB2100P / TAN: BPLI00953B Assessee by Shri Sumit Nema, Sr. Adv with Shri Gagan Tiwari, Adv Revenue by Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 31.07.2024 Date of Pronouncement 01.08.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench…

M/S. Idea Cellular Limited, Indore vs. The DCIT (TDS), Indore

Appeals are allowed

ITA 109/IND/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore01 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 194Section 194HSection 194JSection 201(1)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, इंदौर "ायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 110/Ind/2015 (AY 2013-14 – Quarter-1, 2 & 3 of FY 2012-13) M/s Idea Cellular Ltd., DCIT (TDS), बनाम/ 139-140, Indore. Vs. Electronics Complex, Pardeshipura, Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) PAN: AAACB2100P / TAN: BPLI00953B Assessee by Shri Sumit Nema, Sr. Adv with Shri Gagan Tiwari, Adv Revenue by Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 31.07.2024 Date of Pronouncement 01.08.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench…

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Kurnool vs. Sree Rayalaseema Galaxy Projects Pvt Ltd, Kurnool

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is allowed

ITA 1763/HYD/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2010-11 Sree Rayalaseema Galaxy Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 1, Projects Pvt. Limited, Kurnool. Flat No.40-304, Bhagyanagagar, Kurnool – 518004. Pan : Aaecs1589H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Assistant Commissioner Of Sree Rayalaseema Galaxy Income Tax, Circle – 1, Projects Pvt. Limited, Kurnool. 40-304, Bhagyanagagar, Kurnool – 518004. Pan : Aaecs1589H (Cross Applicant) (Respondent/Assessee) Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, C.A. Revenue By: Ms. Sheetal Sarin, Sr.Ar Date Of Hearing: 22.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.07.2024

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Sheetal Sarin, Sr.AR
Section 10BSection 154Section 250

…has also deleted the addition made by the AO towards the disallowance of the trade discount by following certain judicial pronouncements, including the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Berger Paints India Limited Vs. CIT reported in (2004) 266 ITR 99, by holding that although the appellant has disallowed the trade discount for the impugned assessment year but the same has been subsequently reversed and offered to tax for the assessment year 2011-12. From the above, it is very clear that the taxability of the trade discount of Rs.3,99,77,971/- was not in dispute, but the only dispute is in the…

Sree Rayalaseema Galaxy Projects Pvt Ltd., Kurnool vs. ITO, Ward-1, Kurnool

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is allowed

ITA 615/HYD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2010-11 Sree Rayalaseema Galaxy Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 1, Projects Pvt. Limited, Kurnool. Flat No.40-304, Bhagyanagagar, Kurnool – 518004. Pan : Aaecs1589H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Assistant Commissioner Of Sree Rayalaseema Galaxy Income Tax, Circle – 1, Projects Pvt. Limited, Kurnool. 40-304, Bhagyanagagar, Kurnool – 518004. Pan : Aaecs1589H (Cross Applicant) (Respondent/Assessee) Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, C.A. Revenue By: Ms. Sheetal Sarin, Sr.Ar Date Of Hearing: 22.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.07.2024

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Sheetal Sarin, Sr.AR
Section 10BSection 154Section 250

…has also deleted the addition made by the AO towards the disallowance of the trade discount by following certain judicial pronouncements, including the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Berger Paints India Limited Vs. CIT reported in (2004) 266 ITR 99, by holding that although the appellant has disallowed the trade discount for the impugned assessment year but the same has been subsequently reversed and offered to tax for the assessment year 2011-12. From the above, it is very clear that the taxability of the trade discount of Rs.3,99,77,971/- was not in dispute, but the only dispute is in the…

Idea Cellular Limited, Indore vs. DCIT TDS, Indore

ITA 265/IND/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Apr 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S Vodafone Idea Ltd. Cit (Tds), बनाम/ (Formerly M/S Idea Bhopal Vs. Cellular Ltd.), 139-140, Electronics Complex, Pardeshipura, Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) M/S Vodafone Idea Ltd. Dcit/Jcit (Tds), बनाम/ (Formerly M/S Idea Indore Vs. Cellular Ltd.), 139-140, Electronics Complex, Pardeshipura, Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

Section 194HSection 194JSection 201Section 201(1)Section 250Section 254(2)Section 263

…High Court and various Tax Tribunals have taken the view that there is no human intervention involved in providing the interconnect services whether it be for data link or roaming. 8. The Supreme Court in Berger Paints India Ltd. v. CIT [2004] 135 Taxman 586/266 ITR 99 has held 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 assessee without just cause. 9. Keeping in view the aforesaid mandate of law and the letter dated 21st April, 20…

M/S. Idea Cellular Limited, Indore vs. The CIT (TDS), Bhopal

ITA 415/IND/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Apr 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S Vodafone Idea Ltd. Cit (Tds), बनाम/ (Formerly M/S Idea Bhopal Vs. Cellular Ltd.), 139-140, Electronics Complex, Pardeshipura, Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) M/S Vodafone Idea Ltd. Dcit/Jcit (Tds), बनाम/ (Formerly M/S Idea Indore Vs. Cellular Ltd.), 139-140, Electronics Complex, Pardeshipura, Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

Section 194HSection 194JSection 201Section 201(1)Section 250Section 254(2)Section 263

…High Court and various Tax Tribunals have taken the view that there is no human intervention involved in providing the interconnect services whether it be for data link or roaming. 8. The Supreme Court in Berger Paints India Ltd. v. CIT [2004] 135 Taxman 586/266 ITR 99 has held 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 assessee without just cause. 9. Keeping in view the aforesaid mandate of law and the letter dated 21st April, 20…

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 4081/DEL/2010[2003-04]Status: PendingITAT Delhi12 Mar 2024AY 2003-04

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

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT-DR

…u/s 43B of the Act for the amount lying credited in the Modvat account at the end of the accounting year, dismissing the SLP (No. 23461/2012) filed by the department against the order of the High Court in the case of Shri Ram Honda Power Equipment Ltd: [2013] 258 CTR 329 / 352 ITR 481 (SC). Following the above judgment, the ITAT in AY 2006-07, AY 2007-08 and 2008-09 decided the aforesaid issue in favour of assessee. The Ld. AR pointed out that the aforesaid issue has been decided against the assessee by the Delhi High Court in assessment years 1999-00 (ITA No.31/2005 and 250/2005), 2000-01 (ITA No.442/2005) and 2…

M/S Din Dayal Pursotam Lal, Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

ITA 148/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 263Section 40A(3)

…essee in this regard only on the ground that copy of Partnership Deed had not been placed on record. The following decisions are to the same effect : i) 358 ITR 295 (SC) CIT vs. Excel Industries Ltd. ii) 308 ITR 161 (SC) CIT vs. J. K. Charitable Trust iii) 266 ITR 99 (SC) CIT v. Berger Paints iv) 394 ITR 449 (SC) Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing company Ltd. vs. DCIT 30.1 Otherwise too, as rightly contended, both the payments, i.e., either on account of remuneration paid to partners, or on account of interest paid to partners is taxable in their respective hands and not in the hands of the assessee. Therefore, no…

M/S Din Dayal Pursotam Lal, Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

ITA 147/CHANDI/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 263Section 40A(3)

…essee in this regard only on the ground that copy of Partnership Deed had not been placed on record. The following decisions are to the same effect : i) 358 ITR 295 (SC) CIT vs. Excel Industries Ltd. ii) 308 ITR 161 (SC) CIT vs. J. K. Charitable Trust iii) 266 ITR 99 (SC) CIT v. Berger Paints iv) 394 ITR 449 (SC) Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing company Ltd. vs. DCIT 30.1 Otherwise too, as rightly contended, both the payments, i.e., either on account of remuneration paid to partners, or on account of interest paid to partners is taxable in their respective hands and not in the hands of the assessee. Therefore, no…

M/S Din Dayal Pursotam Lal, Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

ITA 146/CHANDI/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 263Section 40A(3)

…essee in this regard only on the ground that copy of Partnership Deed had not been placed on record. The following decisions are to the same effect : i) 358 ITR 295 (SC) CIT vs. Excel Industries Ltd. ii) 308 ITR 161 (SC) CIT vs. J. K. Charitable Trust iii) 266 ITR 99 (SC) CIT v. Berger Paints iv) 394 ITR 449 (SC) Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing company Ltd. vs. DCIT 30.1 Otherwise too, as rightly contended, both the payments, i.e., either on account of remuneration paid to partners, or on account of interest paid to partners is taxable in their respective hands and not in the hands of the assessee. Therefore, no…

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)

…d observations were noticed by the Supreme Court in the case of Radha Soami Satsang (supra) and it was held that they equally apply to the assessments which are certainly quasi judicial. 30. In the case of Berger Paints India Ltd. v. CIT [2004] 135 Taxman 586/266 ITR 99 (SC), it was again held by the Supreme Court 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 assessee without just cause. Similar observations have been made by the Supr…

DCIT Central Circle-32, Delhi vs. Bptp Ltd., Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 955/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 955/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2016-17 Dcit, Vs M/S Bptp Ltd., Central Circle-32, M-11, Middle Circle, Connaught New Delhi Circus, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccb2442A Assessee By : Sh. Ajay Bhagwani, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Amitabh K. Sinha, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 17.10.2023 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar:

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Bhagwani, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Amitabh K. Sinha, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 43Section 43B

…following decisions for allowing of interest:  Lakhanpal National Ltd. vs. ITO in 162 ITR 240 (Guj.) (1986)  CIT vs. BPCL in 252 ITR 43 (Bombay) (2001)  Chemicals and Plastics Ltd. vs. CIT 260 ITR 193 (Mad.) (2002)  Berger Paints (India) Ltd. vs. CIT in 266 ITR 99 (SC) (2004)  Associated Pigments Ltd. vs. CVIT in 234 ITR 589 (Cal.) (1998)  CIT vs. C.L. Gupta & Sons in 259 ITR 513 (All.) (2002)  CIT vs. Modipon Ltd. in C.A. no. 19763 of 2017 (SC) (2017)  DCIT vs. GSK Consumer Healthcare Ltd. in 107 ITD 343 (Chd.) 21. To conclude,  The assessee has filed working to show that it has not claimed double b…

Suresh Productions, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-14(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue as well as all the appeals and C

ITA 2105/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri K. Narasimha Charyappeal In Ita No Appellant Respondent A.Y 1429/Hyd/2014 Acit Circle M/S. Suresh 2003-04 13(1) Hyderabad Productions Hyderabad Co 78/Hyd/2014 M/S. Suresh Acit Circle 13(1) 2003-04 (Ita Productions Hyderabad 1429/H/2014) Hyderabad 2102/Hyd/2018 -Do- Addl.Cit, Range 13(Old) 2010-11 Range-14 (Present) Hyderabad 2103/Hyd/2018 -Do- Dy.Cit, Circle 14(1) 2012-13 Hyderabad 2104/Hyd/2018 -Do- -Do- 2013-14 2105/Hyd/2018 -Do- -Do- 2014-15 Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas, Ca Revenue By: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Dr

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, DR
Section 143(3)Section 148

…f Rs.1,50,00,000/- has been taxed on deferral basis over a period of time. For the above proposition, the learned Counsel for the assessee relied upon the following decisions: i) CIT vs. Nagari Mills Co. Ltd (33 ITR 681) (Bombay) ii) Berger Paints India Ltd (266 ITR 99) (pages 103-104) (S.C) iii) PCIT v. Rajesh Prakash Timblo (2019 (415 ITR 334) (Bombay) iv) CIT vs. Excel Producer Ltd (358 ITR 295).(S.C) 21. The learned DR in his rejoinder submitted that the question of issue of notice u/s 143(2) does not arise since the assessee failed to submit the return of income in response to notice u/s 148 of the I.T. Ac…

Suresh Productions, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-14(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue as well as all the appeals and C

ITA 2104/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri K. Narasimha Charyappeal In Ita No Appellant Respondent A.Y 1429/Hyd/2014 Acit Circle M/S. Suresh 2003-04 13(1) Hyderabad Productions Hyderabad Co 78/Hyd/2014 M/S. Suresh Acit Circle 13(1) 2003-04 (Ita Productions Hyderabad 1429/H/2014) Hyderabad 2102/Hyd/2018 -Do- Addl.Cit, Range 13(Old) 2010-11 Range-14 (Present) Hyderabad 2103/Hyd/2018 -Do- Dy.Cit, Circle 14(1) 2012-13 Hyderabad 2104/Hyd/2018 -Do- -Do- 2013-14 2105/Hyd/2018 -Do- -Do- 2014-15 Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas, Ca Revenue By: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Dr

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, DR
Section 143(3)Section 148

…f Rs.1,50,00,000/- has been taxed on deferral basis over a period of time. For the above proposition, the learned Counsel for the assessee relied upon the following decisions: i) CIT vs. Nagari Mills Co. Ltd (33 ITR 681) (Bombay) ii) Berger Paints India Ltd (266 ITR 99) (pages 103-104) (S.C) iii) PCIT v. Rajesh Prakash Timblo (2019 (415 ITR 334) (Bombay) iv) CIT vs. Excel Producer Ltd (358 ITR 295).(S.C) 21. The learned DR in his rejoinder submitted that the question of issue of notice u/s 143(2) does not arise since the assessee failed to submit the return of income in response to notice u/s 148 of the I.T. Ac…

Suresh Productions, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-14(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue as well as all the appeals and C

ITA 2103/HYD/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri K. Narasimha Charyappeal In Ita No Appellant Respondent A.Y 1429/Hyd/2014 Acit Circle M/S. Suresh 2003-04 13(1) Hyderabad Productions Hyderabad Co 78/Hyd/2014 M/S. Suresh Acit Circle 13(1) 2003-04 (Ita Productions Hyderabad 1429/H/2014) Hyderabad 2102/Hyd/2018 -Do- Addl.Cit, Range 13(Old) 2010-11 Range-14 (Present) Hyderabad 2103/Hyd/2018 -Do- Dy.Cit, Circle 14(1) 2012-13 Hyderabad 2104/Hyd/2018 -Do- -Do- 2013-14 2105/Hyd/2018 -Do- -Do- 2014-15 Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas, Ca Revenue By: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Dr

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, DR
Section 143(3)Section 148

…f Rs.1,50,00,000/- has been taxed on deferral basis over a period of time. For the above proposition, the learned Counsel for the assessee relied upon the following decisions: i) CIT vs. Nagari Mills Co. Ltd (33 ITR 681) (Bombay) ii) Berger Paints India Ltd (266 ITR 99) (pages 103-104) (S.C) iii) PCIT v. Rajesh Prakash Timblo (2019 (415 ITR 334) (Bombay) iv) CIT vs. Excel Producer Ltd (358 ITR 295).(S.C) 21. The learned DR in his rejoinder submitted that the question of issue of notice u/s 143(2) does not arise since the assessee failed to submit the return of income in response to notice u/s 148 of the I.T. Ac…

Suresh Productions, Hyderabad vs. Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-13(Old), Range-14(Present), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue as well as all the appeals and C

ITA 2102/HYD/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Oct 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri K. Narasimha Charyappeal In Ita No Appellant Respondent A.Y 1429/Hyd/2014 Acit Circle M/S. Suresh 2003-04 13(1) Hyderabad Productions Hyderabad Co 78/Hyd/2014 M/S. Suresh Acit Circle 13(1) 2003-04 (Ita Productions Hyderabad 1429/H/2014) Hyderabad 2102/Hyd/2018 -Do- Addl.Cit, Range 13(Old) 2010-11 Range-14 (Present) Hyderabad 2103/Hyd/2018 -Do- Dy.Cit, Circle 14(1) 2012-13 Hyderabad 2104/Hyd/2018 -Do- -Do- 2013-14 2105/Hyd/2018 -Do- -Do- 2014-15 Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas, Ca Revenue By: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Dr

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, DR
Section 143(3)Section 148

…f Rs.1,50,00,000/- has been taxed on deferral basis over a period of time. For the above proposition, the learned Counsel for the assessee relied upon the following decisions: i) CIT vs. Nagari Mills Co. Ltd (33 ITR 681) (Bombay) ii) Berger Paints India Ltd (266 ITR 99) (pages 103-104) (S.C) iii) PCIT v. Rajesh Prakash Timblo (2019 (415 ITR 334) (Bombay) iv) CIT vs. Excel Producer Ltd (358 ITR 295).(S.C) 21. The learned DR in his rejoinder submitted that the question of issue of notice u/s 143(2) does not arise since the assessee failed to submit the return of income in response to notice u/s 148 of the I.T. Ac…

ACIT, Circle-13(1), Hyderabad vs. M/S Suresh Productions, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue as well as all the appeals and C

ITA 1429/HYD/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Oct 2023AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri K. Narasimha Charyappeal In Ita No Appellant Respondent A.Y 1429/Hyd/2014 Acit Circle M/S. Suresh 2003-04 13(1) Hyderabad Productions Hyderabad Co 78/Hyd/2014 M/S. Suresh Acit Circle 13(1) 2003-04 (Ita Productions Hyderabad 1429/H/2014) Hyderabad 2102/Hyd/2018 -Do- Addl.Cit, Range 13(Old) 2010-11 Range-14 (Present) Hyderabad 2103/Hyd/2018 -Do- Dy.Cit, Circle 14(1) 2012-13 Hyderabad 2104/Hyd/2018 -Do- -Do- 2013-14 2105/Hyd/2018 -Do- -Do- 2014-15 Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas, Ca Revenue By: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Dr

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, DR
Section 143(3)Section 148

…f Rs.1,50,00,000/- has been taxed on deferral basis over a period of time. For the above proposition, the learned Counsel for the assessee relied upon the following decisions: i) CIT vs. Nagari Mills Co. Ltd (33 ITR 681) (Bombay) ii) Berger Paints India Ltd (266 ITR 99) (pages 103-104) (S.C) iii) PCIT v. Rajesh Prakash Timblo (2019 (415 ITR 334) (Bombay) iv) CIT vs. Excel Producer Ltd (358 ITR 295).(S.C) 21. The learned DR in his rejoinder submitted that the question of issue of notice u/s 143(2) does not arise since the assessee failed to submit the return of income in response to notice u/s 148 of the I.T. Ac…

Measage G. G Oils & Fats Private Limited, Bathinda vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle- 1, Bathinda

In the result, the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 513/ASR/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.189/Asr/2018 Assessment Years: 2014-15

Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 250

…this rule is subject to limitations, for there should be finality and certainty in all litigations including litigation arising out of the Income Tax Act and an earlier decision on the same question cannot be reopened.” Berger Paints India Ltd. Vs CIT(2004) 266 ITR 99 (SC) b. “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 assesses, without just cause”. Here in the present case in assessee’s own case, the view has been taken by CIT(A) a…