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 367,368 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

Mesers G.G Contineental Trades Pvt.Ltd, Bathinda vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-I, Bathinda

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

ITA 189/ASR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

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…

Shri Swaran Singh, Jalandhar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-4(1), Jalandhar

The appeal of the assesse is allowed in the terms indicated as above

ITA 11/ASR/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar23 Feb 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir SehgalFor Respondent: Mrs. Kanchan Garg, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 44A

…s 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.” b. Berger Paints India Ltd. Vs CIT (2004) 266 ITR 99 (SC) “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) and…

DCIT, Circle-19(2), New Delhi vs. Personiv Contact Centres India Pvt Ltd ( Formely Known As John Keels Bpo Solutions Pvt. Ltd.), Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 7295/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Feb 2023AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Pulkit Saini, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.K. Mishra, Senior DR
Section 143(3)Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘F’ : NEW DELHI) SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.7295/Del./2019 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2016-17) DCIT, Circle 19 (2), vs. M/s. Personiv Contact Centres India New Delhi. (P) Ltd., (formerly known as M/s. John Keels BPO Solutions India (P) Ltd.), 8th Floor, Tower – B, Building No.6, DLF Cyber City, Phase – III, Gurgaon – 122 002 (Haryana). (PAN : AAFCA9079F) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri Pulkit Saini, Advocate REVENUE BY : Shri K.K. Mishra, Senior DR Date of Hearing : 15.02.2023 Date of Order : 22.02.202…

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 961/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2010-11] Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs Dcit, Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, Circle-16(1), Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070. New Delhi. Pan-Aaacm0829Q Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2010-11] Dcit, Vs Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Circle-16(1), Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, New Delhi. Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070. Pan-Aaacm0829Q Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr.Adv., Shri Neeraj Jain, Adv. & Ms. Tejasvi Jain & Ms. Somya Jain, Ca Respondent By Shri G.C.Srivastava, Adv., Shri Kalrav Mehrotra, Adv. & Shri Mayank Patawari, Ca Date Of Hearing 11.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 09.02.2023

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 43Section 43B

…g the Judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of the case of Samtel Color Ltd.in Civil Appeal Number 6449 of 2012 . The Reliance was also placed on the Judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Bereger Paints(India Ltd. Vs CIT 266 ITR 99. He contended that this amount represents custom duty/CVD paid by the assessee during the relevant assessment year on import of components/raw material which were in transition on the last date of financial year. He contended that the similar disallowance was made in AYs 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 and the Hon’ble Tribunal vide orders dated…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 1507/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2010-11] Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs Dcit, Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, Circle-16(1), Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070. New Delhi. Pan-Aaacm0829Q Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2010-11] Dcit, Vs Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Circle-16(1), Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, New Delhi. Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070. Pan-Aaacm0829Q Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr.Adv., Shri Neeraj Jain, Adv. & Ms. Tejasvi Jain & Ms. Somya Jain, Ca Respondent By Shri G.C.Srivastava, Adv., Shri Kalrav Mehrotra, Adv. & Shri Mayank Patawari, Ca Date Of Hearing 11.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 09.02.2023

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 43Section 43B

…g the Judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of the case of Samtel Color Ltd.in Civil Appeal Number 6449 of 2012 . The Reliance was also placed on the Judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Bereger Paints(India Ltd. Vs CIT 266 ITR 99. He contended that this amount represents custom duty/CVD paid by the assessee during the relevant assessment year on import of components/raw material which were in transition on the last date of financial year. He contended that the similar disallowance was made in AYs 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 and the Hon’ble Tribunal vide orders dated…

Grr Holdings, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle -3 (3), Hyderabad

ITA 92/HYD/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Grr Holdings Vs. Dy. Cit Hyderabad Circle 3(3) Pan:Aaqfg0867M Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Murali Mohan Rao, Ca Revenue By: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, Dr Date Of Hearing: 19/01/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 31/01/2023 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 16.3.2022 Passed U/S 263 Of The I.T. Act, 1961 By The Learned Pr.Cit (Central) Hyderabad Relating To A.Y. 2014-15. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Partnership Firm Incorporated On 31.1.2014 & Is In The Business Of Real Estate. It Did Not File Its Original Return Of Income For The A.Y 2014- 15. A Search & Seizure Operation U/S 132 Of The I.T. Act Was Conducted On 20.9.2017. In Response To Notice U/S 153A Dated 11.5.2018, No Return Of Income Was Filed. The Ar Of The Assessee Also Refused To Appear When Contacted By The Assessing Officer. Subsequently, The Partner Of The Assessee Firm Shri Gaddam Shyam

For Appellant: Shri Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 144Section 153ASection 263Section 69

…ITA No 92 of 2022 GRR HOLDINGS आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘ B ‘ Bench, Hyderabad Before Shri R.K. Panda, Accountant Member AND Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Judicial Member Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/s. GRR HOLDINGS Vs. Dy. CIT Hyderabad Circle 3(3) PAN:AAQFG0867M Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Murali Mohan Rao, CA Revenue by: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, DR Date of hearing: 19/01/2023 Date of pronouncement: 31/01/2023 ORDER Per R.K. Panda, A.M This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 16.3.2022 passed u/s 263 of th…

Ss Oral Hygiene Products Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle-3(2), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 645/HYD/2011[2005-06]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2022AY 2005-06
Section 143(3)Section 92A(2)(g)Section 92C

…ITA No.645/Mum/2011 Assessment Year: 2005-06 Page 1 of 7 INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI ‘J’ BENCH, MUMBAI [Coram: Pramod Kumar (Vice President)] and Sandeep S Karhail (Judicial Member)] Assessment Year: 2005-06 SS Oral Hygine Products Pvt. Ltd. …………………….. Appellant (Now merged with Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd.) Colgate Research Centre, Main Street, Hiranandani Garderns, Powai, Mumbai400 076 [PAN: AADCS4028C] Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-3(2) Hyderabad ………………….Respondent Appearances: Madhur Agarwal for the appellant Samruddhi Hande for the respondent Date of concluding the hearing : 14.10.2022…

M/S. Ss Oral Hygiene Products Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Idcit, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 105/HYD/2011[2006-07]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2022AY 2006-07
Section 143(3)Section 92A(2)(g)Section 92C

…hat position to be sustained by not challenging the order it would not at all be appropriate to allow the position to the change in subsequent year. Our attention is being invited to Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of Berger Paints India Ltd vs CIT 266 ITR 99, wherein Hon’ble Supreme has held that if the revenue has not challenged correctness of the law laid down and accepted it in one case, it will not be opened to revenue to challenge its correctness in the case of the other assessee without just cause. It is submitted that when the revenue authorities are denuded of the powers of raising point which…

DCIT, Circle- 7(1), New Delhi vs. Dabur India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 183/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Sept 2022AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Shah, CIT DR
Section 801BSection 92C

…t is the settled law that the Revenue has to be consistent in its approach and it is not open to the Revenue to take an inconsistent stand in the case of different assessee. [Ref. Kaumudini Narayan Dalai: 249 ITR 219 (SC) and Berger Paints India Ltd. vs. CIT: 266 ITR 99 (SC)]. Therefore, consistent with the stand taken by the Revenue in the case of different assesses, the said filter, in our opinion, is to be uniformly applied in all cases. 23 ITA No.7154 /Del./2017 ITA No.7253/Del./2017 ITA No.7431 /Del./2017 ITA No.183/Del./2018 82.21 In view of the above discussion and in view of the detailed reasoning given…

DCIT, Circle-7(1), New Delhi vs. Dabur India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7431/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Sept 2022AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Shah, CIT DR
Section 801BSection 92C

…t is the settled law that the Revenue has to be consistent in its approach and it is not open to the Revenue to take an inconsistent stand in the case of different assessee. [Ref. Kaumudini Narayan Dalai: 249 ITR 219 (SC) and Berger Paints India Ltd. vs. CIT: 266 ITR 99 (SC)]. Therefore, consistent with the stand taken by the Revenue in the case of different assesses, the said filter, in our opinion, is to be uniformly applied in all cases. 23 ITA No.7154 /Del./2017 ITA No.7253/Del./2017 ITA No.7431 /Del./2017 ITA No.183/Del./2018 82.21 In view of the above discussion and in view of the detailed reasoning given…

Dabur India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-7(1), New Delhi

In the result, all these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7253/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Sept 2022AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Shah, CIT DR
Section 801BSection 92C

…t is the settled law that the Revenue has to be consistent in its approach and it is not open to the Revenue to take an inconsistent stand in the case of different assessee. [Ref. Kaumudini Narayan Dalai: 249 ITR 219 (SC) and Berger Paints India Ltd. vs. CIT: 266 ITR 99 (SC)]. Therefore, consistent with the stand taken by the Revenue in the case of different assesses, the said filter, in our opinion, is to be uniformly applied in all cases. 23 ITA No.7154 /Del./2017 ITA No.7253/Del./2017 ITA No.7431 /Del./2017 ITA No.183/Del./2018 82.21 In view of the above discussion and in view of the detailed reasoning given…

Dabur India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 7(1), New Delhi

In the result, all these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7154/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Sept 2022AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Shah, CIT DR
Section 801BSection 92C

…t is the settled law that the Revenue has to be consistent in its approach and it is not open to the Revenue to take an inconsistent stand in the case of different assessee. [Ref. Kaumudini Narayan Dalai: 249 ITR 219 (SC) and Berger Paints India Ltd. vs. CIT: 266 ITR 99 (SC)]. Therefore, consistent with the stand taken by the Revenue in the case of different assesses, the said filter, in our opinion, is to be uniformly applied in all cases. 23 ITA No.7154 /Del./2017 ITA No.7253/Del./2017 ITA No.7431 /Del./2017 ITA No.183/Del./2018 82.21 In view of the above discussion and in view of the detailed reasoning given…

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Applitech Solution Ltd., Ahmedabad

ITA 247/AHD/2020[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Aug 2022AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kshatriya &For Respondent: Shri James Kurian, CIT-DR &
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 148

…se of finality in all litigations and a decision on the same question would be respected unless some new facts were found with material difference in other years having regard to landmark judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Berger Paints Ltd. [2004] 266 ITR 99 (SC). Followed further in ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Parashuram Pottary Works Co. Ltd. V/s ITO 1977 CTR (SC) 32: (1977) 106 ITR 1 (SC) whose relevant portion (Para 10) is reproduced as below: "It has been said that the taxes are the price that we pay for civilization. If so, it is essential that those who are entrusted with the…

Poonawalla Shares & Securities Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Wealth-Tax, Circle-4, Pune

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 380/PUN/2020[2016/17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jul 2022

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.380/Pun/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Poonawalla Shares & Securities The Assistant Pvt. Ltd., Vs Commissioner Of Income 16-B,/1, Sarosh Bhavan, Tax, Dr.Ambedkar Road, Circle-4, Pune. Pune – 411001 Pan: Aaacp 6087 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Percy Pardiwala – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 08/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 29/07/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2016-17 Is Directed Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-3, Pune’S Order Dated 11.12.2019 Passed In Case No.Pn/Cit(A)-3/Cir 4/193/2018-19/428, In Proceedings U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short “The Act”].

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…t any further, then it cannot agitate the same issue in the case of a ITA No.380/PUN/2020 for A.Y. 2016-17 Poonawalla Shares & Securities Pvt. Ltd., Vs. ACIT, Circle-4, Pune (A) different assessee without just cause. [Berger Paints India Ltd. vs. CIT (2004) (266 ITR 99) (SC)]. Not only did the department not pursue its appeal before the High Court in the case of Raptakos (supra), it has not challenged the decisions of the Tribunal in the cases of Somnath (supra), United Investments (supra) and Netesoft (supra). Therefore, having accepted the ratio of the Tribunal’s decisions in these three matters, the departmen…

Dy CIT 10 (3)91), Mumbai vs. M/S Nouveau Developers Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for AY

ITA 8047/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 8047/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Dcit-10(3)(1) बिधम/ M/S. Nouveau Developers Pvt. 1St Room No.217/212, Ltd. Vs. Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, 701, Natraj, M. V. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai- Junction, Western Express 400020. Highway, Andheri East, Mumbai-400072. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 7039/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2014-15) बिधम/ Dcit-10(3)(1) M/S. Nouveau Developers Pvt. Room No.212, 2Nd Floor, Ltd. Vs. Aayakar Bhawan, M. K. 702, Natraj, M. V. Road, Road Churchgate, Junction, Western Express Mumbai-400020. Highway, Andheri East, Mumbai-400069. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccn5280G (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Dr. Pratap Narayan Sharma (Sr.Ar) Assessee By: Shri Naresh Kumar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 27/06/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/07/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Of The Revenue Preferred Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-17, Mumbai Dated 24.10.2019 For A.Y.2013-14; & Order Dated 07.09.2018 For Ay.2014-15. 2. First We Deal With Appeal Pertaining To Ay. 2013-14 Wherein Ground No. 1 Of The Revenue Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Reversing The Action Of The Ao Capitalizing Rs.2,47,96,353/- Which

For Appellant: Shri Naresh KumarFor Respondent: Dr. Pratap Narayan Sharma

…to accept the judgment in the case of the assessee in that case and challenge its correctness in the case of another assessee, without just cause." The same view was reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Berger Paints India Ltd. v. CIT [2004] 266 ITR 992, and followed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the cases of CWT v. R.K.K.R. International (P.) Ltd. [2005] 198 CTR 5673 and CIT v. Neo Poly Pack Pvt. Ltd. [2000] 245 ITR 4924. When it is not possible for the revenue to challenge an order of the appellate authority in one case and when it has accepted identical order of the appellate authority i…

DCIT - 10 (3)(1), Mumbai vs. Nouveau Developers Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for AY

ITA 7039/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 8047/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Dcit-10(3)(1) बिधम/ M/S. Nouveau Developers Pvt. 1St Room No.217/212, Ltd. Vs. Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, 701, Natraj, M. V. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai- Junction, Western Express 400020. Highway, Andheri East, Mumbai-400072. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 7039/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2014-15) बिधम/ Dcit-10(3)(1) M/S. Nouveau Developers Pvt. Room No.212, 2Nd Floor, Ltd. Vs. Aayakar Bhawan, M. K. 702, Natraj, M. V. Road, Road Churchgate, Junction, Western Express Mumbai-400020. Highway, Andheri East, Mumbai-400069. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccn5280G (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Dr. Pratap Narayan Sharma (Sr.Ar) Assessee By: Shri Naresh Kumar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 27/06/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/07/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Of The Revenue Preferred Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-17, Mumbai Dated 24.10.2019 For A.Y.2013-14; & Order Dated 07.09.2018 For Ay.2014-15. 2. First We Deal With Appeal Pertaining To Ay. 2013-14 Wherein Ground No. 1 Of The Revenue Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Reversing The Action Of The Ao Capitalizing Rs.2,47,96,353/- Which

For Appellant: Shri Naresh KumarFor Respondent: Dr. Pratap Narayan Sharma

…to accept the judgment in the case of the assessee in that case and challenge its correctness in the case of another assessee, without just cause." The same view was reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Berger Paints India Ltd. v. CIT [2004] 266 ITR 992, and followed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the cases of CWT v. R.K.K.R. International (P.) Ltd. [2005] 198 CTR 5673 and CIT v. Neo Poly Pack Pvt. Ltd. [2000] 245 ITR 4924. When it is not possible for the revenue to challenge an order of the appellate authority in one case and when it has accepted identical order of the appellate authority i…

ITO 15(2)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Niche Health Options P Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 1373/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2022AY 2014-15
Section 143Section 40A(2)Section 40A(2)(b)

…to accept the judgment in the case of the assessee in that case and challenge its correctness in the case of another assessee, without just cause." The same view was reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Berger Paints India Ltd. v. CIT [2004] 266 ITR 992, and followed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the cases of CWT v. R.K.K.R. International (P.) Ltd.[2005] 198 CTR 5673 and CIT v. Neo Poly Pack Pvt. Ltd. [2000] 245 ITR 4924. When it is not possible for the revenue to challenge an order of the appellate authority in one case and when it has accepted identical order of the appellate authority in…

M/S. Dakshina Kannada Nirmithi Kendra, Mangaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Circle -1, Mangaluru

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

ITA 948/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R
Section 11Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(15)

…& ITA Nos.2086 to 2089/Bang/2018 M/s. Udupi Nirmithi Kendra, Udupi & Dakshina Kannada Nirmithi Kendra, Manguluru Page 129 of 176 ∗ CIT vs. Excel Industries and others [2013] 358 ITR 295 (SC); ∗ Berger Paints India Ltd vs. CIT [2004] 187 CTR (SC) 193: [2004] 266 ITR 99 (SC); ∗ PCIT vs. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., [2019] 416 ITR 613 (SC); ∗ CIT vs. Sridev Enterprises (1991) 192 ITR 165 (Kar.- HC); ∗ DIT (E) vs. Lovely Bal Shiksha Parishad [2004] 186 CTR (Del) 384: [2004] 266 ITR 349 (Del); ∗ CIT vs. Leader Values Ltd. [2008] 214 CTR (P&H) 429: (2007) 295 ITR 273 (P&H); ∗ ITO vs. Moradabad Development Authority [201…

M/S. Udupi Nirmithi Kedra, Udupi vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Circle - 1, Mangaluru

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

ITA 947/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R
Section 11Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(15)

…& ITA Nos.2086 to 2089/Bang/2018 M/s. Udupi Nirmithi Kendra, Udupi & Dakshina Kannada Nirmithi Kendra, Manguluru Page 129 of 176 ∗ CIT vs. Excel Industries and others [2013] 358 ITR 295 (SC); ∗ Berger Paints India Ltd vs. CIT [2004] 187 CTR (SC) 193: [2004] 266 ITR 99 (SC); ∗ PCIT vs. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., [2019] 416 ITR 613 (SC); ∗ CIT vs. Sridev Enterprises (1991) 192 ITR 165 (Kar.- HC); ∗ DIT (E) vs. Lovely Bal Shiksha Parishad [2004] 186 CTR (Del) 384: [2004] 266 ITR 349 (Del); ∗ CIT vs. Leader Values Ltd. [2008] 214 CTR (P&H) 429: (2007) 295 ITR 273 (P&H); ∗ ITO vs. Moradabad Development Authority [201…

Dakshina Kannada Nirmithi Kendra, Mangaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, (Exemptions), Circle-1, Mangaluru

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

ITA 2089/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R
Section 11Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(15)

…& ITA Nos.2086 to 2089/Bang/2018 M/s. Udupi Nirmithi Kendra, Udupi & Dakshina Kannada Nirmithi Kendra, Manguluru Page 129 of 176 ∗ CIT vs. Excel Industries and others [2013] 358 ITR 295 (SC); ∗ Berger Paints India Ltd vs. CIT [2004] 187 CTR (SC) 193: [2004] 266 ITR 99 (SC); ∗ PCIT vs. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., [2019] 416 ITR 613 (SC); ∗ CIT vs. Sridev Enterprises (1991) 192 ITR 165 (Kar.- HC); ∗ DIT (E) vs. Lovely Bal Shiksha Parishad [2004] 186 CTR (Del) 384: [2004] 266 ITR 349 (Del); ∗ CIT vs. Leader Values Ltd. [2008] 214 CTR (P&H) 429: (2007) 295 ITR 273 (P&H); ∗ ITO vs. Moradabad Development Authority [201…