How many judgments cite Berger Paints India Ltd. v. CIT?

181 judgments on BharatTax cite Berger Paints India Ltd. v. CIT (266 ITR 99), spanning 2006 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Berger Paints India Ltd. v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 147, Section 148, Section 251(2), Section 69A, Section 142(1).

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 147 Section 148 Section 251(2)Section 69A Section 142(1)Section 22 Section 255(4)

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

put to use section 92b rule of consistency most appropriate method section 92ca(3)arm's length price section 40a(3)mercantile system of accounting permanent establishment section 43b section 40a transfer pricing adjustment

Judgments citing Berger Paints India Ltd. v. CIT

The Kadiyan Coop. L&C Society Ltd., Panipat vs. ACIT, Circle Panipat, Panipat

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 667/DEL/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Nov 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishithe Kadiyan Coop L&C Society Vs. Acit, Ltd, Circle Panipat V&Po Sewah, Panipat, Haryana Pan: Aaalt0541R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Aneja, AdvFor Respondent: Shri N.K. Bansal, Sr. DR

Section 1Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 155Section 80

…tax Act, which had been dropped. Moreover, the decision of this court in CIT v. Berger Paints (India) Ltd. (No. 1)[2002] 254 ITR 498 on which this ground is based, has been reversed by the Supreme Court in Berger Paints ( India) Ltd. v. CIT reported in [2004] 266 ITR 99. 20. Dr. Pal rightly argued that the second ground disclosed for issuance of the impugned notice is the same as the fourth ground disclosed in the rectification notice under section 154 of the Income-tax Act, which had been dropped upon consideration of the submission of the petitioner, in its reply thereto. 21. Dr. Pal submitted that the content…

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

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 467/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamblei.T.A .No. 467/Del/2014 (A.Y 2009-10)

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

…43B of the Act. Therefore, the Ld. AR submitted that the aggregate amount of Rs. 78,01,08,417/- was allowable as deduction to the assessee under section 43B of the Act. The Ld. AR relied upon the following decisions:- • Berger Paints India Ltd. Vs. CIT(2004) 266 ITR 99 (S.C) • CIT v. Shri Ram Honda Power Equipment Corporation : 258 CTR 329 / 352 ITR 481 (SC) • CIT v. Modipon Ltd.: 400 ITR 1 (SC) • CIT v. Paharpur Cooling Towers Ltd.: CA No. 19769 of 2017 (SC) • Lakhanpal National v. ITO : 162 ITR 240 (Guj) • Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd: 252 ITR 43 (Bom) • CIT v. NCR Corporation India (P) Ltd.: 240 Taxman 59…

Bisazza India Pvt. Ltd., Kadi vs. The Pr. CIT- 1, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1480/AHD/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 263Section 263(1)

…taxed. Before the ld. Pr. CIT a reliance was placed on the judgement(s) of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Indo Nippon Chemicals Co. Ltd. reported at (2003) 261 ITR 275(SC) and of CIT vs. Shri Ram Honda Power Equipment Ltd. reported at (2013) 258 CTR 329(SC). The reliance was also placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Unique Industries reported at (2008) 307 ITR 350 (Guj) and also the decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Bemco Sleepers Ltd. Aurangabad vs. Department of Income Tax in ITA No.715/PN/2011 dated 20/06/2012 In support of…

Sh.Anil Dhiwan S/O Sh.A.K.Dhwan vs. Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Mandi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1298/CHANDI/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh17 Jul 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptash.Anil Dhawan, S/O Sh.A.K.Dhawan, Vs. The D.C.I.T., Moti Bazar, Mandi, Distt. Mandi (H.P.) Circle-Mandi (H.P.) Pan: Aejpd7188M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: S/Shri Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Chanderkanta, Addl.CIT, DR

Section 194Section 194HSection 250(6)Section 40

…istinguished and the department having accepted purchase and sale during the preceding year 2007-08 and looking to the doctrine of consistency and in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Berger Paints India Ltd. vs. CIT reported in 266 ITR 99, we find that the assessee is a Trader' and relationship is that of the principal to principal and the authorities below are not justified to hold relationship of principal and that of an agent. Accordingly, the assessee is not liable for the provisions of Section 201(1) & 201(1 A) of the Act. Thus, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and that of the A.O.…

Satypal Jaikumar Jain, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 39, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and the

ITA 3965/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2010-11 Acit, Satyapal Jaikumar Jain, Cc-39, R. No.32(1), 82, Maker Chambers-Iii, बनाम/ Ground Floor, Nariman Point, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400021 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No. Aabpj1888Q Assessment Year: 2010-11 Satyapal Jaikumar Jain, Acit, 82, Maker Chambers-Iii, Cc-39, R. No.32(1), बनाम/ Nariman Point, Ground Floor, Vs. Mumbai-400021 Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aabpj1888Q

Section 131

…s supports our view. i. Parshuram Pottery Works Ltd. vs ITO 106 ITR 1 (SC) ii. Security Printers 264 ITR 276(Del.) iii. CIT vs Neo Polypack Pvt. Ltd. 245 ITR 492 (Del.) iv. CWT vs Allied Finance Pvt. Ltd. 289 ITR 318 (Del.) v. Berger Paints India Ltd. vs CIT 266 ITR 99 (SC) 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 Set…

ACIT CC 39, Mumbai vs. Satypal Jain, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and the

ITA 3831/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2018AY 2010-11

Section 131

Hero Motocorp Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl.CIT, Range-11, New Delhi

In the result ground No

ITA 6990/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jun 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamblei.T.A. No. 6990/Del/2017 (A.Y 2013-14)

Section 143(3)Section 144C

…ccounting standards notified by the CBDT u/s 145(2) mandate that the concept of materiality be taken into consideration when finalizing the accounts of an assessee. 7.24 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 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 since it was…

Hero Motocorp Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal No. 2424/Del/ 2015 filed by the revenue in assessment year 2010-11 is partly allowed

ITA 1616/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C

…counting standards notified by the CBDT u/s 145(2) mandate that the concept of materiality be taken into consideration when finalizing the accounts of an assessee. 7.24 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 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 since it was…

DCIT, Cir-5(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Kesoram Industries Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1660/KOL/2016[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Mar 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: "ी पी.एम .जगताप, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri P. M. Jagtap, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 145ASection 43B

…1 Kesoram Industries Ltd.,AY- 2003-04 आयकर अपील"य अधीकरण, "यायपीठ – “C” कोलकाता, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH: KOLKATA (सम")Before "ी पी.एम .जगताप, लेखा सद"य एवं/and "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri P. M. Jagtap, AM & Shri A. T. Varkey, JM] I.T.A. No. 1660/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2003-04 Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Vs. M/s. Kesoram Industries Ltd., Circle-5(1), Kolkata. (PAN: AABCK2417P) Appellant Respondent Date of Hearing 05.03.2018 Date of Pronouncement 07.03.2018 For the Appellant Shri P. K. Srihari, CIT, DR For the Respondent Shri Akkal Dudhwewala, AR ORDER Per Shri…

Everest Industires Ltd, New Delhi vs. JCIT RG 1, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is treated as allowed and the appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed

ITA 3804/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Ramlal Negi (Jm)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” Bench, Mumbai Before S/Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) & Ramlal Negi (JM) I.T.A. No. 3804/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year 2009-10) Everest Industries Limited JCIT Range-1 A-32, G-1, Genesis Vs. Ashar I.T. Park Mohan Cooperative 6th Floor, B-Wing Industrial Estate 16-Z, Wagle Mathura Road Industrial Estate New Delhi-110 044. Thane(W)-400 604. (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A. No. 3849/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year 2009-10) DCIT Circle-1 Everest Industries Limited Ashar I.T. Park Vs. A-32, G-1, Genesis 6th Floor, B-Wing Mohan Cooperative 16-Z, Wagle Industrial Estate Industrial Estate Mat…

JCIT, (OSD), Cir-8(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Itc Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, both the appeal of revenue and CO of assessee are dismissed

ITA 656/KOL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jan 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And "ी एम. बालगनेश, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 147Section 148Section 43B

…er year i.e. AY 2005-06 of Rs.270,06,83,951/- was added back in the relevant assessment year under consideration i.e. AY 2006-07. This treatment is inconsonance with the ratio decidendi of the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in Berger Paints India Ltd. Vs. CIT 266 ITR 99 (SC). We note that similar issues arose in subsequent year in assessee’s own case for AYs. 2009-10, 2008-09 and 2007-08 and the Tribunal held that the treatment carried out by the assessee in respect of the excise duty as legally tenable. We note that in identical case the decision of the Coodinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Exide Indust…

M/S Maruti Udyog Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Del

ITA/31/2005HC Delhi07 Dec 2017

Bench: 31St March 2000, I.E. The End Of The Relevant Accounting Year, Even Though The Assessee Has Already Incurred Liability Of Excise Duty Of Rs.12.27 Crores?

Section 260ASection 43B

…ITA No.31/2005 Page 1 of 41 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 11th November 2017 Decided on: 7th December, 2017 + ITA No.31/2005 MARUTI UDYOG LTD. ..... Appellant Through : Mr. S. Ganesh, Senior Advocate with Ms. Kavita Jha, Mr. S. Sukumaran, Mr. Anand Sukumar, Mr. Bhuwan Dhoopar, Ms. Roopali Gupta and Mr.Bhupesh Pathak, Advocates. versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Senior Standing Counsel, Mr. Puneet Rai, Junior Standi…

Commissioner of Income Tax Del vs. M/S Maruti Udyog Ltd

ITA/250/2005HC Delhi07 Dec 2017

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Section 14ASection 43B

…ITA No.250/2005 Page 1 of 6 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 11th November 2017 Decided on: 7th December, 2017 + ITA No. 250/2005 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Senior Standing Counsel, Mr. Puneet Rai, Junior Standing Counsel and Mr. Gaurav Kheterpal, Advocate. versus MARUTI UDYOG LTD. ..... Respondent Through : Mr. S. Ganesh, Senior Advocate with Ms. Kavita Jha, Mr. S. Sukumaran, Mr. Anand Sukumar, Mr. Bhuwan Dhoopar, Ms. Roopali Gup…

M/S. Dayanand Contractor, Rohtak vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

In the result, original

ITA 2807/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Kumar Kamal & Lalit MohanFor Respondent: Ms. Rachna Singh, CIT-D.R

Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “B” : DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.No.2806 & 2807/Del./2016 Assessment Years 2009-2010 & 2010-2011 M/s. Dayanand Contractor The Pr. CIT V & PO Kharainti, Aayakar Bhavan, Delhi Road, Dist. Rohtak. vs. Rohtak – 124 001 PAN AADFD4239K Haryana. (Appellant) (Respondent) S/Shri Gautam Jain, Piyush For Assessee : Kumar Kamal & Lalit Mohan, Advocates For Revenue : Ms. Rachna Singh, CIT-D.R. Date of Hearing : 22.11.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 30.11.2017 ORDER PER BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M. Both the appeals b…

M/S. Dayanand Contractor, Rohtak vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

In the result, original

ITA 2806/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Kumar Kamal & Lalit MohanFor Respondent: Ms. Rachna Singh, CIT-D.R

Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 263

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

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

ITA 6021/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri K.N. Charry

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 14ASection 35DSection 43BSection 92C

…arious amount of duties paid during the year under consideration, the duties paid were allowable as deduction under section 43B of the Act. ITA No.-6021/Del/2012 3.3. While placing reliance on the decisions reported in Berger Paints India Ltd. v. CIT (2004) 266 ITR 99 (SC), CIT v. Shri Ram Honda Power Equipment Corporation : 258 CTR 329 / 352 ITR 481 (SC), CIT v. Modipon Ltd.:334 ITR 106 (Del), Lakhanpal National Ltd. v. ITO : 162 ITR 240 (Guj), Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.: 252 ITR 43 (Bom), CIT v. NCR Corporation India (P) Ltd. : 240 Taxman 598 (Kar.), Chemicals and Plastics India Ltd. v. CIT : 260 ITR 1…

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

…Cargo Motors Pvt Ltd. i. Parshuram Pottery Works Ltd. vs ITO 106 ITR 1 (SC) ii. Security Printers 264 ITR 276(Del.) iii. CIT vs Neo Polypack Pvt. Ltd. 245 ITR 492 (Del.) iv. CWT vs Allied Finance Pvt. Ltd. 289 ITR 318 (Del.) v. Berger Paints India Ltd. vs CIT 266 ITR 99 (SC) 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 Set…

M/S. Dayanand Contractor, Rohtak vs. ITO, Rohtak

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2027/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.P. Jain

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, & Sh. Lalit Mohan, CAFor Respondent: Shri T. Vasanthan Sr. DR

Section 144A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘SMC’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI B.P. JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 2027/DEL/2016 [A.Y. 2012-13] Dayanand Contractor Vs. ITO C/o. N.C.Garg, CA Ward-1 Mal Godam Road Rohtak Rohtak PAN : AADFD4239K [Appellant] [Respondent] Date of Hearing : 10.10.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 16.10.2017 Assessee by : Shri Gautam Jain, & Sh. Lalit Mohan, CA Revenue by : Shri T. Vasanthan Sr. DR ORDER This appeal of the assessee arises from the order of the ld. CIT(A)-Faridabad vide order dated 23.02.2016 for assessment year 2012-13. 2. The assessee has raised following additional…

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

…se of the assessee: - i. Parshuram Pottery Works Ltd. vs ITO 106 ITR 1 (SC) ii. Security Printers 264 ITR 276(Del.) iii. CIT vs Neo Polypack Pvt. Ltd. 245 ITR 492 (Del.) iv CWT vs Allied Finance Pvt. Ltd. 289 ITR 318 (Del.) v. Berger Paints India Ltd. vs CIT 266 ITR 99 (SC) 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…

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