Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. Union of India

282 ITR 273Supreme Court of India2006#751 most cited

What is Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. Union of India authority for?

The rule of consistency requires that in the absence of any change in material facts or law, a different view or decision on an issue cannot be adopted for subsequent assessment years, thus ensuring uniformity in tax assessments.

136

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. Union of India · 282 ITR 273 · rule of consistency · principle of consistency · assessment procedure · prior year assessment · subsequent assessment year · change in facts or law · section 32 · section 263 · section 147 · section 143(3)

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 142(1)Section 144CSection 263Section 147Section 31(1)Section 32Section 32(1)(iii)

Issues it is cited on

rule of consistencymiscellaneous applicationsection 32principal commissioner of income-taxerroneous and prejudicialcross objectionsection 263draft assessment orderscrutiny assessmentsection 26section 10previous year

Judgments citing Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. Union of India

MARATHI BANDHKAM VYA vs. AYIK ASSOCIATION,PUNEVS.ITO, EXEMPTION WARD-1(1),PUNE, PUNE

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

ITA 2310/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Feb 2026AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Suhas P. BoraFor Respondent: Shri Milind Debaje (Virtual)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…e facts and law warranting different view, no authority of the quasi judicial or judicial can generally be permitted to take a different view. This position is laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. vs. Union of India, 282 ITR 273 (SC). The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Quest Investment Advisors (P.) Ltd., 409 ITR 545 (Bom.-HC) after extracting the observation made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (supra) made in para 20 held as follows :- “8. However, subsequently the Apex Court in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. Union of…

H & M HOUSING FINANCE AND LEASING PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, ground No. 1 and 2 of the assessee‟s appeal is allowed

ITA 1332/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanassessment Year : 2017-18 H&M Housing Finance & Deputy Commissioner Of Leasing Private Limited, Income Tax, C/62, 9Th Floor, Vibgyor Towers, Vs. Circle–7(1)(2), Bandra Kurla Complex, Aayakar Bhavan, Bandra (East), M.K.Road, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400020. Pan : Aabch4398E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nitesh Joshi & Shri Nishith Khatri Revenue By : Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi and Shri Nishith KhatriFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr.DR

…Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. Quest Investment Advisors (P.) Ltd. [2018) 96 taxmann.com 157/257 Taxman 211/409 ITR 545 (Bombay). in which this Court referring to the decision of the Supreme Court in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. Union of India [2006] 282 ITR 273 (SC) which followed the decision in Radhasoami Satsang (supra) accepted the rule of consistency. The following observations of the Supreme Court are required to be noted:- "15. The question in Radhasoami Satsang v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1992] 1 SCC 659/Radhasoami Satsangv. Commissioner of Income-tax (1991) 60 Taxman 248/193 ITR 321 (SC): [1…

DCIT, MUMBAI vs. BHAGWANA RAM BISHNOI, MUMBAI

Accordingly, the appeal ordingly, the appeals of the assessee as well as Revenue are of the assessee as well as Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3903/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Bhagwana Ram Bishnoi, Dcit Circle 19(1), Shop No. 01, Ground Floor, Piramal Chambers Dr. Ss Rao Vs. Radhakrishna Co-Op. Hsg. Soc., 4Th Marg, Parel, Floor, Khetwadi Lane Khetwadi Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400004. Pan No. Acopb 3309 B Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dcit Circle 19(1), Bhagwana Ram Bishnoi, Piramal Chambers Dr. Ss Rao Marg, Shop No. 01, Gound Floow, Vs. Parel, Radhakrishna Co-Op. Hsg. Mumbai-400012. Soc., 4Th Floor, Khetwadi Lane Khetwadi Mumbai-400004. Pan No. Acopb 3309 B Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Bharat KumarFor Respondent: 20/08/2025

…in Radhasoami Satsang v. CIT [1992] 193 ITR 321 (SC) and further explained in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. Union (SC) and further explained in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. Union (SC) and further explained in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. Union of India [2006] 282 ITR 273 (SC), as also applied by the Hon’ble 006] 282 ITR 273 (SC), as also applied by the Hon’ble 006] 282 ITR 273 (SC), as also applied by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Pr. CIT v. Quest Investment Advisors (P.) Bombay High Court in Pr. CIT v. Quest Investment Advisors (P.) Bombay High Court in Pr. CIT v. Quest Investment Advisors (P.) Ltd. [2018] 96…

BHAGWANA RAM BISHNOI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 19(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly, the appeal ordingly, the appeals of the assessee as well as Revenue are of the assessee as well as Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1815/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Bhagwana Ram Bishnoi, Dcit Circle 19(1), Shop No. 01, Ground Floor, Piramal Chambers Dr. Ss Rao Vs. Radhakrishna Co-Op. Hsg. Soc., 4Th Marg, Parel, Floor, Khetwadi Lane Khetwadi Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400004. Pan No. Acopb 3309 B Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dcit Circle 19(1), Bhagwana Ram Bishnoi, Piramal Chambers Dr. Ss Rao Marg, Shop No. 01, Gound Floow, Vs. Parel, Radhakrishna Co-Op. Hsg. Mumbai-400012. Soc., 4Th Floor, Khetwadi Lane Khetwadi Mumbai-400004. Pan No. Acopb 3309 B Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Bharat KumarFor Respondent: 20/08/2025

…in Radhasoami Satsang v. CIT [1992] 193 ITR 321 (SC) and further explained in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. Union (SC) and further explained in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. Union (SC) and further explained in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. Union of India [2006] 282 ITR 273 (SC), as also applied by the Hon’ble 006] 282 ITR 273 (SC), as also applied by the Hon’ble 006] 282 ITR 273 (SC), as also applied by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Pr. CIT v. Quest Investment Advisors (P.) Bombay High Court in Pr. CIT v. Quest Investment Advisors (P.) Bombay High Court in Pr. CIT v. Quest Investment Advisors (P.) Ltd. [2018] 96…

ACIT 531, MUMBAI vs. TELEPERFORMANCE GLOBAL SERVICES PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assesse bearing ITA No

ITA 1484/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: BEFOR SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member), SMT. RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry a/wFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 144C(3)Section 250Section 263

…t years. Therefore, the view of the Tribunal in allowing the respondent's appeal on the principle of consistency cannot in the present facts be faulted with, as it is in accord with the Apex Court decision in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. Union of India [2006] 282 ITR 273. [Para 9]" In view of the above, the assessee succeeds on the principle of consistency. Accordingly we set aside the order of the learned CIT (A) and direct the AO to allow the depreciation to the assessee. Hence the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed.” 7. The Ld. DR argued and stands in favour of the revenue authorities. The Ld.DR rel…

TELEPERFORMANCE GLOBAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ADDITIONAL-JOINT-DEPUTY-ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-INCOME TAX OFFICER, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assesse bearing ITA No

ITA 1452/MUM/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jul 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: BEFOR SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member), SMT. RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry a/wFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 144C(3)Section 250Section 263

…t years. Therefore, the view of the Tribunal in allowing the respondent's appeal on the principle of consistency cannot in the present facts be faulted with, as it is in accord with the Apex Court decision in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. Union of India [2006] 282 ITR 273. [Para 9]" In view of the above, the assessee succeeds on the principle of consistency. Accordingly we set aside the order of the learned CIT (A) and direct the AO to allow the depreciation to the assessee. Hence the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed.” 7. The Ld. DR argued and stands in favour of the revenue authorities. The Ld.DR rel…

TELEPERFORMANCE GLOBAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ADDITIONAL-JOINT-DEPUTY-ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-NCOME TAX OFFICER, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assesse bearing ITA No

ITA 1451/MUM/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jul 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: BEFOR SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member), SMT. RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry a/wFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 144C(3)Section 250Section 263

…t years. Therefore, the view of the Tribunal in allowing the respondent's appeal on the principle of consistency cannot in the present facts be faulted with, as it is in accord with the Apex Court decision in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. Union of India [2006] 282 ITR 273. [Para 9]" In view of the above, the assessee succeeds on the principle of consistency. Accordingly we set aside the order of the learned CIT (A) and direct the AO to allow the depreciation to the assessee. Hence the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed.” 7. The Ld. DR argued and stands in favour of the revenue authorities. The Ld.DR rel…

TELEPERFORMANCE GLOBAL SERVICES P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE PR. CIT -5, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assesse bearing ITA No

ITA 977/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: BEFOR SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member), SMT. RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry a/wFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 144C(3)Section 250Section 263

…t years. Therefore, the view of the Tribunal in allowing the respondent's appeal on the principle of consistency cannot in the present facts be faulted with, as it is in accord with the Apex Court decision in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. Union of India [2006] 282 ITR 273. [Para 9]" In view of the above, the assessee succeeds on the principle of consistency. Accordingly we set aside the order of the learned CIT (A) and direct the AO to allow the depreciation to the assessee. Hence the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed.” 7. The Ld. DR argued and stands in favour of the revenue authorities. The Ld.DR rel…

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

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

Section 255(4)

…has also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Metal Products of India vs. CIT (293 ITR 618) as well as the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors (282 ITR 273). The learned DR has supported the order of the learned AM. 11. I have considered the rival submissions and carefully gone through the orders of the Members of the Division Bench having dissenting view to each other. It appears from the record that up till the A.Y 2017-18, there were 3 scrutiny assessments i.e. 2009- 10, 2013-14 and 2017-18. The…

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

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

Section 255(4)

…has also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Metal Products of India vs. CIT (293 ITR 618) as well as the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors (282 ITR 273). The learned DR has supported the order of the learned AM. 11. I have considered the rival submissions and carefully gone through the orders of the Members of the Division Bench having dissenting view to each other. It appears from the record that up till the A.Y 2017-18, there were 3 scrutiny assessments i.e. 2009- 10, 2013-14 and 2017-18. The…

ARVIND FASHIONS LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PCIT, AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 913/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “B” BENCH Before: DR. BRR Kumar, Vice President And Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member ITA No: 913/Ahd/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Arvind Fashions Limited The PCIT, Arvind Mills Premises, Ahmedabad-1, Naroda Road, Vs Ahmedabad Dist: Ahmedabad Gujarat-380025 (Respondent) PAN: AAOCA0655N (Appellant) Assessee Represented: Shri Vartik Choksi , A.R. & Shri Biren Shah, A.R. Revenue Represented: Shri V Nandakumar, CIT-DR Date of hearing : 20-03-2025 Date of pronouncement : 29-05-2025 आदेश/ORDER PER : T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- This appeal i…

M/S LUBRIZOL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DCIT/ACIT, CIRCLE-3(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of assessee for both AYs are allowed

ITA 6099/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal & (Physical Hearing) M/S. Lubrizol India Private Limited Deputy Commissioner Of Plant 9/3, Thane-Belapur Road, Turbhe, Vs Income Tax, Dcit/Acit, Navi Mumbai – 400705. Circle – 3(4), Mumbai. [Pan No. Aaacl 0126 H] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Paras Savla Advocate A/W Ms. Rajnandini Shukla, Ca/ Ar Revenue By Ms. Neena Jeph, (Cit Dr) / Shri Kiran Unavekar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 27.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21.04.2025 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act

Section 254(1)

…ted change in law or change in facts therein, which change has to be pointed out in the assessment Order. In so doing the jurisdictional High Court followed the judgment of the Supreme Court in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v/s. Union of India reported in [2006] 282 ITR 273 where the court had drawn a distinction between the principle of res judicata and consistency. We find that similar methodology has been accepted by the revenue for AYs 2008- 09 & 2011-12. Further, the application of TNMM method has been accepted by the Tribunal for AYs 2005-06 to 2007-08 and no change in facts or circumstances has been demonstr…

LUBRIZOL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of assessee for both AYs are allowed

ITA 4630/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal & (Physical Hearing) M/S. Lubrizol India Private Limited Deputy Commissioner Of Plant 9/3, Thane-Belapur Road, Turbhe, Vs Income Tax, Dcit/Acit, Navi Mumbai – 400705. Circle – 3(4), Mumbai. [Pan No. Aaacl 0126 H] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Paras Savla Advocate A/W Ms. Rajnandini Shukla, Ca/ Ar Revenue By Ms. Neena Jeph, (Cit Dr) / Shri Kiran Unavekar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 27.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21.04.2025 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act

Section 254(1)

…ted change in law or change in facts therein, which change has to be pointed out in the assessment Order. In so doing the jurisdictional High Court followed the judgment of the Supreme Court in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v/s. Union of India reported in [2006] 282 ITR 273 where the court had drawn a distinction between the principle of res judicata and consistency. We find that similar methodology has been accepted by the revenue for AYs 2008- 09 & 2011-12. Further, the application of TNMM method has been accepted by the Tribunal for AYs 2005-06 to 2007-08 and no change in facts or circumstances has been demonstr…

YCH LOGISTICS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KANCHIPURAM, TAMILNADU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE -3(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

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

ITA 1330/CHNY/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 1330/Chny/2023 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Ych Logistics India Private Ltd., Assistant Commissioner Of Plot D V 1, Hi-Tech Sez Phase Ii, V. Income Tax, Sirumangadu Village, Sriperumbudur Corporate Circle -3(2), Taluk, Tamil Nadu 602 105. Chennai. [Pan: Aaacy-2873-L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. Ajit Kumar Jain, CA by VirtualFor Respondent: Shri. A. Sasikumar, CIT
Section 10ASection 250Section 92C(3)Section 92D

…आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण,‘डी’"यायपीठ,चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी जॉज" जॉज" के, उपा"य" एवं "ी एस.आर.रघुनाथा, लेखासद"यके सम" BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.: 1330/Chny/2023 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 YCH Logistics India Private Ltd., Assistant Commissioner of Plot D V 1, Hi-Tech SEZ Phase II, v. Income Tax, Sirumangadu Village, Sriperumbudur Corporate Circle -3(2), Taluk, Tamil Nadu 602 105. Chennai. [PAN: AAACY-2873-L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant by…

CREDIT GUARANTEE FUND TRUST FOR MICRO AND SMALL ENTERPRISES ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT EXEMPTION-1(1), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 179/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Shankarcredit Guarantee Fund Vs. Dcit(E) – 1(1) Trust Mumbai. 1St Floor, Sidbi Swavalaman Bhavan, Avenue – 3, Lane 2, G-Block, Bkc, Bandra (E) Pan/Gir No. Aaatc2613D (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(1)(d)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 2(24)Section 2(24)(iia)Section 250

…g assessment year is subject matter of consideration then as held by the Apex Court in Radhasoami Satsang v. CIT [1992] 193 ITR 321 (SC), the same approach ought to have been adopted by the ld. AO Further, in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. Union of India [2006] 282 ITR 273, the Apex Court held that though the principle of Res-judicata would not apply to tax matters as cause of action for each assessment year is different / distinct, yet in case there is no change in the factual position or the law, the views expressed in one year are binding for the subsequent years. This is on the principle of consistency. It is s…

STRITON PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED (ERSTWHILE MARS HOTELS AND RESORTS PRIVATE LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 10(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3945/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Sunil Kumar Singh, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Ravikant S. Pathak, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh, Sr. A/R
Section 32

…e of the opinion that such principles are appropriately applied by the Tribunal. The Supreme Court has held it to be a settled principle of law that although strictly speaking res judicata does not apply to income tax proceedings, and as such, what is 8 [2006]282 ITR 273 (SC) 21 October 2024 16ITXA-685- 07GRP.DOC decided in one year may not apply in the following year. Thus, when a fundamental aspect permeating through different assessment years has been treated in one way or the other and that has been allowed to continue such position ought not be changed without any new fact requiring such a direction. (See: M…

STRITON PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED (ERSTWHILE MARS HOTEL AND RESORTS PRIVATE LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 10(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3944/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Sunil Kumar Singh, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Ravikant S. Pathak, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh, Sr. A/R
Section 32

…e of the opinion that such principles are appropriately applied by the Tribunal. The Supreme Court has held it to be a settled principle of law that although strictly speaking res judicata does not apply to income tax proceedings, and as such, what is 8 [2006]282 ITR 273 (SC) 21 October 2024 16ITXA-685- 07GRP.DOC decided in one year may not apply in the following year. Thus, when a fundamental aspect permeating through different assessment years has been treated in one way or the other and that has been allowed to continue such position ought not be changed without any new fact requiring such a direction. (See: M…

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5, NAGPUR vs. THE NIRMAL UJWAL CREDIT CO-OP SOCIETY LTD, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal for the A

ITA 391/NAG/2019[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Nagpur27 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. MoryaniFor Respondent: Shri Vikash Agrawal
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 80PSection 80P(2)

…ent assessment years- Therefore, the view of the Tribunal in allowing the assessee‟s appeal on the principle of consistency cannot in the present facts be faulted with- Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors. (2006) 201 CTR (SC) 346: (2006) 282 ITR 273 (SC) applied. Conclusion – Principle accepted by the Revenue for ten earlier years and four subsequent years was that the entire expenditure is to be allowed against business income and no expenditure is to be allocated to capital gains; view of the Tribunal in allowing the assessee‟s appeal on the principle of consistency cannot in the present f…

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5, NAGPUR vs. THE NIRMAL UJWAL CREDIT CO-OP SOCIETY LTD, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue for the assessment year

ITA 390/NAG/2019[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Nagpur27 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. MoryaniFor Respondent: Shri Vikash Agrawal
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 80PSection 80P(2)

…ent assessment years- Therefore, the view of the Tribunal in allowing the assessee‘s appeal on the principle of consistency cannot in the present facts be faulted with- Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors. (2006) 201 CTR (SC) 346: (2006) 282 ITR 273 (SC) applied. Conclusion – Principle accepted by the Revenue for ten earlier years and four subsequent years was that the entire expenditure is to be allowed against business income and no expenditure is to be allocated to capital gains; view of the Tribunal in allowing the assessee‘s appeal on the principle of consistency cannot in the present f…

PRAGATI POWER CORPORATION LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 20(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 1617/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

Section 115JSection 145(2)Section 32Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37Section 43ASection 46ASection 80I

…tion to be changed in a subsequent year. Assessee is also relying upon the following case:- Parashuram Pottery Works Ltd. vs. ITO (1977) 106 ITR 01 (SC) Pr. CIT vs Quest Investment Advisors Ltd. (2018) 409 ITR 545 (Bom) Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. vs UOI (2006) 282 ITR 273 (SC) CIT vs Excel Industries Ltd. (2013) 358 ITR 295 (SC) CIT vs Realest Builders & Services (2008) 307 ITR 202 (SC) DCIT Circle-33 vs India housing (2020) 113 Taxmann.com 535 (ITAT-Kolkata) Bodal Chemicals Ltd. vs Addl CIT (2019) 112 Taxmann.com 217 (ITAT-Ahmedabad) Travencore Textiles P. Ltd. vs ITO (ITA No.3193/Chny/2018) (ITAT-Chennai) AVTEC…

Showing 1–20 of 136 · Page 1 of 7