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

ACIT, Circle-1(2), Cuttack vs. Paradeep Port Trust, Jagatsinghpur

In the result, appeal of the revenue i

ITA 356/CTK/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack09 Aug 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.395/Ctk/2013 (धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2008-2009) Acit, Circle-2(1), Cuttack Vs. Paradip Port Trust, Paradeep, Jagatsinghpur स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaalp 0055 A (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.356/Ctk/2013 (धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2009-2010) Acit, Circle-2(1), Cuttack Vs. Paradip Port Trust, Paradeep, Jagatsinghpur स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaalp 0055 A (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.332/Ctk/2013 (धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2009-2010) Paradip Port Trust, Vs. Acit, Circle-2(1), Cuttack Paradeep, Jagatsinghpur स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaalp 0055 A (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Kunal Singh, Cit Dr निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri J.M.Pattnaik, Ar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 27/07/2017 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 09/08/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: Out Of These Three Appeals, The Revenue Has Filed Two Appeals I.E.

For Appellant: Shri J.M.Pattnaik, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kunal Singh, CIT DR
Section 11Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 2(15)

…the assessee to be not 'charitable institution'. In support of this plea, the learned AR of the assessee has placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Radhsoami Satsang v. CIT (193 ITR 321) and Berger Paints India Ltd. v.CIT [2004] 266 ITR 99 (SC). Therefore, in the light of judgments relied on by the learned AR of the assessee more so the stand of the Department taken in the immediately preceding Assessment Year i.e., Assessment Year 2006-07 in the case of the same assessee on the same set of facts and circumstances, the view taken by the Department for the Assessment Year under consi…

M/S Parapit Port Trust, Cuttack vs. Addl. CIT, Cuttack

In the result, appeal of the revenue i

ITA 332/CTK/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack09 Aug 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.395/Ctk/2013 (धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2008-2009) Acit, Circle-2(1), Cuttack Vs. Paradip Port Trust, Paradeep, Jagatsinghpur स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaalp 0055 A (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.356/Ctk/2013 (धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2009-2010) Acit, Circle-2(1), Cuttack Vs. Paradip Port Trust, Paradeep, Jagatsinghpur स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaalp 0055 A (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.332/Ctk/2013 (धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2009-2010) Paradip Port Trust, Vs. Acit, Circle-2(1), Cuttack Paradeep, Jagatsinghpur स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaalp 0055 A (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Kunal Singh, Cit Dr निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri J.M.Pattnaik, Ar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 27/07/2017 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 09/08/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: Out Of These Three Appeals, The Revenue Has Filed Two Appeals I.E.

For Appellant: Shri J.M.Pattnaik, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kunal Singh, CIT DR
Section 11Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 2(15)

…the assessee to be not 'charitable institution'. In support of this plea, the learned AR of the assessee has placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Radhsoami Satsang v. CIT (193 ITR 321) and Berger Paints India Ltd. v.CIT [2004] 266 ITR 99 (SC). Therefore, in the light of judgments relied on by the learned AR of the assessee more so the stand of the Department taken in the immediately preceding Assessment Year i.e., Assessment Year 2006-07 in the case of the same assessee on the same set of facts and circumstances, the view taken by the Department for the Assessment Year under consi…

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

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1293/KOL/2014[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Jul 2017AY 2007-2008

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1293/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2007-08 Dcit, Cir-5, -Vs.- M/S Kesoram Industries Ltd. Kolkata [Pan : Aabck 2326 B] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Goulen Hangshing, Cit, Dr For The Respondent : Shri Akkal Dudhwewala, Ar Date Of Hearing : 24.05.2017. Date Of Pronouncement : 24.07.2017 Order

For Appellant: Goulen Hangshing, CIT, DRFor Respondent: Shri Akkal Dudhwewala, AR
Section 147

…come for Asst Year 2007-08 (i.e the year under appeal). It was further pleaded that the issue under dispute is further settled in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Berger Paints India Limited vs CIT reported in 266 ITR 99 (SC). Similar view was also endorsed by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Paharpur Cooling Towers Limited vs CIT reported in 2011-TIOL-440-HC-KOL-IT. It was stated that on a consistent basis, the assessee was claiming excise duty on closing stock 7 8 Kesoram Industries Ltd. A.Yr.07-08 separately and disallowing the excise duty…

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

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

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

Section 10BSection 143(1)

…ase 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. 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, New Delhi vs. M/S. Nalwa Steel and Power Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the department is dismissed

ITA 238/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Apr 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Ita No. 238/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Acit, Vs M/S Nalwa Steel & Power Ltd., Circle-13(1), 1213, Najafgarh Road, New Delhi Delhi-110015 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcn3209L Assessee By : Sh. V. K. Tulsiyan, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Rachna Singh, Cit Dr & Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.04.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.04.2017 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Department Against The Order Dated 12.10.2012 Of Ld. Cit(A)-Xvi, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. V. K. Tulsiyan, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Rachna Singh, CIT DR &
Section 115J

…g officer should allow depreciation on electrical installations @ 15% by considering the same to be part of 'plant and machinery'. In the case CIT vs. Oswal Woollen Mills Ltd. (supra), the Punjab and Haryana High Court applied Berger Paints India Ltd. vs. CIT 266 ITR 99 and followed Bharat Earthmovers vs. CIT 245 ITR 428, CIT vs. Oswal Woollen Mills Ltd. 254 ITR 666, CrT vs. Oswal Woollen Mills Ltd. 257 ITR 737 and CIT vs. Starlight Silk Mills P. Ltd. 280 ITR 257 and upheld the Tribunal's decision that the electrical installations formed an integral part of the assessee's plant, therefore, depreciation was allowa…

Asst CIT Cir 2, Thane vs. Salasar Developers, Thane

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4513/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

Section 132Section 132(3)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153A

…ances. Our view is fortified by the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. A.R.J. Security Printers 264 ITR 276 (Del.); and the ratio laid down in CIT Vs. Neo Poly Pack (P) Ltd. 245 ITR 492 (Del.); Berger Paints India Ltd. Vs. CIT 266 ITR 99 (SC); CIT Vs. Lagan Kala Upvan 259 ITR 489 (Del.); and Union of India & others Vs. Kaumudini 42 M/s Salasar Developers ITA No.4511 TO 4513/Mum/2014 Narayan Dalal & another 249 ITR 219 (SC). From this angle also, the assessee is having a strong case in its favour. 8.16. Leave apart, we are of the considered opinion that the assessee is expected…

Asst CIT Cir 2, Thane vs. Salasar Developers, Thane

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4512/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

Section 132Section 132(3)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153A

…ances. Our view is fortified by the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. A.R.J. Security Printers 264 ITR 276 (Del.); and the ratio laid down in CIT Vs. Neo Poly Pack (P) Ltd. 245 ITR 492 (Del.); Berger Paints India Ltd. Vs. CIT 266 ITR 99 (SC); CIT Vs. Lagan Kala Upvan 259 ITR 489 (Del.); and Union of India & others Vs. Kaumudini 42 M/s Salasar Developers ITA No.4511 TO 4513/Mum/2014 Narayan Dalal & another 249 ITR 219 (SC). From this angle also, the assessee is having a strong case in its favour. 8.16. Leave apart, we are of the considered opinion that the assessee is expected…

Asst CIT Cir 2, Thane vs. Salasar Developers, Thane

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4511/MUM/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

Section 132Section 132(3)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153A

…ances. Our view is fortified by the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. A.R.J. Security Printers 264 ITR 276 (Del.); and the ratio laid down in CIT Vs. Neo Poly Pack (P) Ltd. 245 ITR 492 (Del.); Berger Paints India Ltd. Vs. CIT 266 ITR 99 (SC); CIT Vs. Lagan Kala Upvan 259 ITR 489 (Del.); and Union of India & others Vs. Kaumudini 42 M/s Salasar Developers ITA No.4511 TO 4513/Mum/2014 Narayan Dalal & another 249 ITR 219 (SC). From this angle also, the assessee is having a strong case in its favour. 8.16. Leave apart, we are of the considered opinion that the assessee is expected…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-6, New Delhi vs. Nalwa Steel & Power Ltd

ITA/186/2017HC Delhi22 Mar 2017

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

Section 43(3)

…“7.1 After going through the findings of the Ld. CIT(A), as aforesaid, in our considered view, on the anvil of the decision in the case of CIT vs. Oswal Woollen Mills Ltd. (supra), the Punjab and Haryana High Court applied Berger Paints India Ltd. vs. CIT 266 ITR 99 by following the case of Bharat Earthmovers vs. CIT 245 ITR 428, CIT vs. Oswal Woollen Mills Ltd. 254 ITR 666, CIT vs. Oswal Woollen Mills Ltd. 257 ITR 737 and CIT vs. Starlight Silk Mills P. Ltd. 280 ITR 257 the Hon'ble High Court has upheld the Tribunal's decision and hence, we are of the view that the electrical installations formed an i…

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

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

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

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…ssee:- i. Parshuram Pottery Works Ltd. vs ITO 106 ITR 1 (SC) ii. CIT vs A.R.J. 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 (TDS), Jaipur vs. Gnadhi Vidhya Mandir, Churu

ITA 1016/JPR/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Jan 2017AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri M.L. Borad (Advocate)For Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar (CIT)
Section 194CSection 194JSection 201Section 201(1)

…along the order is vitiated. Reliance in support of the principle of consistency is placed on the following judgments: i) CIT vs. Excel Industries Ltd.358 ITR 295 (SC) ii) State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. A.P. Jaiswal (2001) 1 SCC 748 iii) CIT Vs. Berger paints 266 ITR 99 (SC) 4.15 It was further submitted that the appellant also derives supports from circular No.715 dated 8th August, 1995 wherein CBDT has held that the true content or intention must be gleaned on a proper construction of the arrangement. In such circumstances, it is submitted that the submission that dominant intention of the parties was to author…

Hero Motocorp Limited, New Delhi vs. JCIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1545/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. I. C. Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishihero Motocorp Limited, Jcit, 34, Basant Lok, Vasant Range-1, New Delhi Vs. Vihar, New Delhi Pan: Aaach0812J (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, M/S. Hero Moto Corp. Circle-11(1), Ltd., 34, Community Vs. New Delhi Centre, Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-110057 (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, M/S. Hero Moto Corp. Circle-11(1), Ltd., 34, Community

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. NC Sawain, CIT DR
Section 143Section 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…

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

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

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

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

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

…ollowing decisions:- 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…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Nalwa Steel & Power Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4559/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Aug 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Anadi N. Mishraa.Y. : 2006-07 Dcit, Circle 13(1), M/S Nalwa Steel & Power New Delhi Vs. Limited, Room No. 406, Cr Building, 28, Najafgarh Road, Ip Estate, New Delhi New Delhi

For Appellant: Sh. V.K. Tulsiyan, CAFor Respondent: Sh. UC Dubey, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…f the Depreciation Table. 4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CTI(A) erred in relying upon the case laws of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Oswal Woollen Mills Ltd., 2 Berger Paints India Ltd. vs CIT 266 ITR 99, 8harat Earth Movers vs CIT 245 ITR 428 and CIT vs Starlight Silk Mills P. Ltd. 280 ITR 257 wherein it was held that the electrical installations formed integral part of assessee's plant, therefore, depreciation was allowable at the rate applicable to Plant & Machinery. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred…

M/S Parnika Commercial & Estates (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5724/DEL/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jul 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: : Shri C.M. Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. Kapil Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Ashish Chandra Mohanty, Sr. DR
Section 250(6)Section 80Section 80I

…y provisions, the appeal filed by the Revenue has to be allowed and we do so. 13. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed.” 5. The ld. AR relied on the order of the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Berger Paints Indi Ltd. (266 ITR 99), wherein it was held as follows: “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 assessees, without just cause.” She also relied on the order of the Tribunal in assessee’s…

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

Appeal is allowed

ITA 5720/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jul 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu Assessment Year: 2007-08 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs. Additional Cit, Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, Range-6, Vasant Road, New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aaacm0829Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: S/Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. Neeraj Jain, Rohit Jain, Adv. Romit Katyal & Ms. Tejasvi Jain, Cas Department By:Shri Amrendra Kumar, Cit(Dr)

For Appellant: S/Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. NeerajFor Respondent: Shri Amrendra Kumar, CIT(DR)

…e allowable as deduction under sec. 43B of the Act. Thus, the aggregate amount of Rs.1,18,83,44,986 was allowable as deduction to the assessee under sec. 43B of the Act. He placed reliance on the following decisions:  Berger Paints India Ltd. v. CIT : (2004) 266 ITR 99 (SC) Lakhanpal National Ltd. v. ITO : 162 ITR 240 (Guj)   Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. : 252 ITR 43 (Bom) Chemicals and Plastics India Ltd. v. CIT : 260 ITR 193 (Mad)  Indian Communication Network (P) Ltd. v. Inspecting ACIT : 206 ITR S-96 / 49  ITD 56 (ITAT – SB) CIT v. C.L. Gupta : 259 ITR513 (All.)  CIT v. Raj and Sans Deep Ltd: 293 I…

Surya Merchants Ltd., New Delhi vs. CIT, Kanpur

In the result, all the five Appeals filed by the Assessee stand

ITA 3136/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jul 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. Surinder Mahajan, CA &For Respondent: Smt. Sunita Kejriwal, CIT(DR)
Section 153ASection 263Section 40A(3)Section 80I

…AY 2004-05 and next five years is contradictory and is against principles of consistency and for this contention he placed reliance on the following case laws:- a Radha Soami Satsang vs. CIT (1992) 193 ITR 321 (SC) b. Berger Paints India Ltd. vs. CIT (2004) 266 ITR 99 (SC) c. UOI & ORS. vs. Kaumudini Narayan Dalal & Anr. (2001) 249 ITR 219 (SC) d. CIT vs. Shivsagar Estate (2002) 257 ITR 59 (SC) : (2002) 124 TAXMAN 606 (SC) 6.6 The Ld. AR of the assessee stated that the disallowance uls 40A(3) and denial of deduction uls 80-IB being matters considered and decided in appeal, cannot be subjected to revision jur…

Surya Merchants Ltd., New Delhi vs. CIT, Kanpur

In the result, all the five Appeals filed by the Assessee stand

ITA 3135/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jul 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. Surinder Mahajan, CA &For Respondent: Smt. Sunita Kejriwal, CIT(DR)
Section 153ASection 263Section 40A(3)Section 80I

…AY 2004-05 and next five years is contradictory and is against principles of consistency and for this contention he placed reliance on the following case laws:- a Radha Soami Satsang vs. CIT (1992) 193 ITR 321 (SC) b. Berger Paints India Ltd. vs. CIT (2004) 266 ITR 99 (SC) c. UOI & ORS. vs. Kaumudini Narayan Dalal & Anr. (2001) 249 ITR 219 (SC) d. CIT vs. Shivsagar Estate (2002) 257 ITR 59 (SC) : (2002) 124 TAXMAN 606 (SC) 6.6 The Ld. AR of the assessee stated that the disallowance uls 40A(3) and denial of deduction uls 80-IB being matters considered and decided in appeal, cannot be subjected to revision jur…

Surya Merchants Ltd., New Delhi vs. CIT, Kanpur

In the result, all the five Appeals filed by the Assessee stand

ITA 3134/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jul 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. Surinder Mahajan, CA &For Respondent: Smt. Sunita Kejriwal, CIT(DR)
Section 153ASection 263Section 40A(3)Section 80I

…AY 2004-05 and next five years is contradictory and is against principles of consistency and for this contention he placed reliance on the following case laws:- a Radha Soami Satsang vs. CIT (1992) 193 ITR 321 (SC) b. Berger Paints India Ltd. vs. CIT (2004) 266 ITR 99 (SC) c. UOI & ORS. vs. Kaumudini Narayan Dalal & Anr. (2001) 249 ITR 219 (SC) d. CIT vs. Shivsagar Estate (2002) 257 ITR 59 (SC) : (2002) 124 TAXMAN 606 (SC) 6.6 The Ld. AR of the assessee stated that the disallowance uls 40A(3) and denial of deduction uls 80-IB being matters considered and decided in appeal, cannot be subjected to revision jur…

Surya Merchants Ltd., New Delhi vs. CIT, Kanpur

In the result, all the five Appeals filed by the Assessee stand

ITA 3133/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jul 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. Surinder Mahajan, CA &For Respondent: Smt. Sunita Kejriwal, CIT(DR)
Section 153ASection 263Section 40A(3)Section 80I

…AY 2004-05 and next five years is contradictory and is against principles of consistency and for this contention he placed reliance on the following case laws:- a Radha Soami Satsang vs. CIT (1992) 193 ITR 321 (SC) b. Berger Paints India Ltd. vs. CIT (2004) 266 ITR 99 (SC) c. UOI & ORS. vs. Kaumudini Narayan Dalal & Anr. (2001) 249 ITR 219 (SC) d. CIT vs. Shivsagar Estate (2002) 257 ITR 59 (SC) : (2002) 124 TAXMAN 606 (SC) 6.6 The Ld. AR of the assessee stated that the disallowance uls 40A(3) and denial of deduction uls 80-IB being matters considered and decided in appeal, cannot be subjected to revision jur…