Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. Union of India

282 ITR 273Supreme Court of India2006#747 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 366,470 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

Pune Mathadi Hamal and Other Manual Workers Board, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(1), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1012/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1012/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Pune Mathadihamal & Other The Income Tax Manual Workers Board, V Officer, Shramashakti Bhavan, S Ward-5(1), Pune. Coomercial Plot No.1, Market Yard, Pune – 411037. Pan: Aaalp0097L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Vipul Joshi – Ar Revenue By Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari & Shri Rajesh Gawali– Dr’S Date Of Hearing 17/04/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 27/06/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Orders Of Ld.Commissionerof Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Under Section 250 Of The Act Dated 14.07.2023 :

For Appellant: 2. The ld.AR submitted written submissions, relevant part of the same is reprodu
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 250

…hat restrict its applicability only to that decision and the Court has made it clear that the decision should not be taken as an authority for general applicability. 8. However, subsequently the Apex Court in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. Union of India [2006] 282 ITR 273 has after referring to the decision of Radhasoami Satsang (supra) has observed as under :— "20. The decisions cited have uniformly held that res judicata does not apply in matters pertaining to tax for different assessment years because res judicata applies to debar courts from entertaining issues on the same cause of action whereas the cause of…

Communications Global Network Services Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation), Circle-2(2), Bangalore

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 32/BANG/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuappeal No. Appellant Respondent It(It)A M/S. Communications Global The Deputy Commissioner Of No.89/Bang/2019 Network Services Limited, Income Tax 81, Newgate Street, London, (International Taxation), Assessment Year : Ec1A 7Aj, Circle – 2(1), 2009-10 United Kingdom. Bengaluru. Pan : Aagcc 9220 K It(It)A The Deputy Commissioner Of Nos.2218/Bang/2019, Income Tax 32/Bang/2021, -Do (International Taxation), 709/Bang/2022, Circle – 2(2), 165 To 167/Bang/2023 Bengaluru. Assessment Years : 2010-11 To 2015-16 Assessee By : Shri. T. Suryanarayana, Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, Advocates Revenue By : Shri. Aseem Sharma, Cit(Dr), Itat, Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 28.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.08.2023

For Appellant: Shri. T. Suryanarayana, Smt. Tanmayee RajkumarFor Respondent: Shri. Aseem Sharma, CIT(DR), ITAT, Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 201Section 5(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Appeal No. Appellant Respondent IT(IT)A M/s. Communications Global The Deputy Commissioner of No.89/Bang/2019 Network Services Limited, Income Tax 81, Newgate Street, London, (International Taxation), Assessment Year : EC1A 7AJ, Circle – 2(1), 2009-10 United Kingdom. Bengaluru. PAN : AAGCC 9220 K IT(IT)A The Deputy Commissioner of Nos.2218/Bang/2019, Income Tax 32/Bang/2021, -do (International Taxation), 709/Bang/2022, Circle – 2(2), 165 to 167/Bang/2023 Bengaluru. A…

M/S Communications Global Network Services Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax International Taxation Circle-2(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 89/BANG/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Aug 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuappeal No. Appellant Respondent It(It)A M/S. Communications Global The Deputy Commissioner Of No.89/Bang/2019 Network Services Limited, Income Tax 81, Newgate Street, London, (International Taxation), Assessment Year : Ec1A 7Aj, Circle – 2(1), 2009-10 United Kingdom. Bengaluru. Pan : Aagcc 9220 K It(It)A The Deputy Commissioner Of Nos.2218/Bang/2019, Income Tax 32/Bang/2021, -Do (International Taxation), 709/Bang/2022, Circle – 2(2), 165 To 167/Bang/2023 Bengaluru. Assessment Years : 2010-11 To 2015-16 Assessee By : Shri. T. Suryanarayana, Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, Advocates Revenue By : Shri. Aseem Sharma, Cit(Dr), Itat, Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 28.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.08.2023

For Appellant: Shri. T. Suryanarayana, Smt. Tanmayee RajkumarFor Respondent: Shri. Aseem Sharma, CIT(DR), ITAT, Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 201Section 5(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Appeal No. Appellant Respondent IT(IT)A M/s. Communications Global The Deputy Commissioner of No.89/Bang/2019 Network Services Limited, Income Tax 81, Newgate Street, London, (International Taxation), Assessment Year : EC1A 7AJ, Circle – 2(1), 2009-10 United Kingdom. Bengaluru. PAN : AAGCC 9220 K IT(IT)A The Deputy Commissioner of Nos.2218/Bang/2019, Income Tax 32/Bang/2021, -do (International Taxation), 709/Bang/2022, Circle – 2(2), 165 to 167/Bang/2023 Bengaluru. A…

M/S. Communications Global Network Services Limited, United Kingdom vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation), Circle- 2(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2218/BANG/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Aug 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuappeal No. Appellant Respondent It(It)A M/S. Communications Global The Deputy Commissioner Of No.89/Bang/2019 Network Services Limited, Income Tax 81, Newgate Street, London, (International Taxation), Assessment Year : Ec1A 7Aj, Circle – 2(1), 2009-10 United Kingdom. Bengaluru. Pan : Aagcc 9220 K It(It)A The Deputy Commissioner Of Nos.2218/Bang/2019, Income Tax 32/Bang/2021, -Do (International Taxation), 709/Bang/2022, Circle – 2(2), 165 To 167/Bang/2023 Bengaluru. Assessment Years : 2010-11 To 2015-16 Assessee By : Shri. T. Suryanarayana, Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, Advocates Revenue By : Shri. Aseem Sharma, Cit(Dr), Itat, Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 28.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.08.2023

For Appellant: Shri. T. Suryanarayana, Smt. Tanmayee RajkumarFor Respondent: Shri. Aseem Sharma, CIT(DR), ITAT, Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 201Section 5(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Appeal No. Appellant Respondent IT(IT)A M/s. Communications Global The Deputy Commissioner of No.89/Bang/2019 Network Services Limited, Income Tax 81, Newgate Street, London, (International Taxation), Assessment Year : EC1A 7AJ, Circle – 2(1), 2009-10 United Kingdom. Bengaluru. PAN : AAGCC 9220 K IT(IT)A The Deputy Commissioner of Nos.2218/Bang/2019, Income Tax 32/Bang/2021, -do (International Taxation), 709/Bang/2022, Circle – 2(2), 165 to 167/Bang/2023 Bengaluru. A…

Lubrizol India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. NFAC, Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 586/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1464/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Lubrizol India Pvt. Ltd. Acit, Circle-3(4) बिधम/ Plant 9/3, Thane-Belapur Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Road, Turbhe, Navi Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai-400705. Mumbai-400020. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.586/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Lubrizol India Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ National Faceless Plant 9/3, Thane-Belapur Assessment Centre, Delhi. Vs. Road, Turbhe, Navi Mumbai-400705. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1576/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2018-19) Lubrizol India Pvt. Ltd. Dcit/Acit, Circle-3(4) बिधम/ Plant 9/3, Thane-Belapur Mumbai. Vs. Road, Turbhe, Navi Mumbai-400705. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacl0126H (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Niraj Sheth/Ms. Urvi Mehta/Abdulkadir Jawadwala Revenue By: Shri Aditya M Rai (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 22/06/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/06/2023

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Sheth/Ms. UrviFor Respondent: Shri Aditya M Rai (Sr. AR)
Section 143(3)Section 92C(1)

…low the position to be changed in a subsequent year, unless there was any material change justifying the revenue to take a different view of the matter.” 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Vs. Union of India reported in (2006) (282 ITR 273), has held as under: - “Where facts and law in a subsequent assessment year are that same, no authority whether quasi-judicial or judicial can generally be per-mitted to take a different view. This mandate is 9 586 & 1576/Mum/2022 A.Y. 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Lubrizol India Pvt. Ltd. subject only to the usual gateways of distinguishing the ea…

M/S. Lubrizol India Pvt. Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 3(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1464/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1464/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Lubrizol India Pvt. Ltd. Acit, Circle-3(4) बिधम/ Plant 9/3, Thane-Belapur Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Road, Turbhe, Navi Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai-400705. Mumbai-400020. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.586/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Lubrizol India Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ National Faceless Plant 9/3, Thane-Belapur Assessment Centre, Delhi. Vs. Road, Turbhe, Navi Mumbai-400705. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1576/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2018-19) Lubrizol India Pvt. Ltd. Dcit/Acit, Circle-3(4) बिधम/ Plant 9/3, Thane-Belapur Mumbai. Vs. Road, Turbhe, Navi Mumbai-400705. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacl0126H (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Niraj Sheth/Ms. Urvi Mehta/Abdulkadir Jawadwala Revenue By: Shri Aditya M Rai (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 22/06/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/06/2023

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Sheth/Ms. UrviFor Respondent: Shri Aditya M Rai (Sr. AR)
Section 143(3)Section 92C(1)

…low the position to be changed in a subsequent year, unless there was any material change justifying the revenue to take a different view of the matter.” 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Vs. Union of India reported in (2006) (282 ITR 273), has held as under: - “Where facts and law in a subsequent assessment year are that same, no authority whether quasi-judicial or judicial can generally be per-mitted to take a different view. This mandate is 9 586 & 1576/Mum/2022 A.Y. 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Lubrizol India Pvt. Ltd. subject only to the usual gateways of distinguishing the ea…

Namita Aggarwal, Agra Up vs. ITO Ward-10(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7686/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Feb 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.7686/Del/2019 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 बनाम Namita Aggarwal Ito D-59, Kamla Nagar, Vs. Ward 10(1) Agra, Uttar Pradesh. New Delhi. Pan No. Abcpa2224R अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 57

…I.T.A.No.7686/Del/2019 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “E” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.7686/Del/2019 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 बनाम Namita Aggarwal ITO D-59, Kamla Nagar, Vs. Ward 10(1) Agra, Uttar Pradesh. New Delhi. PAN No. ABCPA2224R अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Rajiv Saxena, Adv. िनधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee by Shri Jeetendra Chand, Sr. DR राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue by सुनवाईक"तारीख/ Date of hearing: 26.12.2022 16.02.2023 उ"ोषणाक"तारीख/Pronouncement on आदेश /O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD, J.M.…

M/S. Global Cricket Corporation Pte. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DDIT It-3(1), Mumbai

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, and cross-objection by the Assessee are disposed off as infructuous

ITA 1510/MUM/2009[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2022AY 2003-2004
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147

…n any equipment (except computer equipment). He further submitted alleged equipments were not at the disposal of GCC or the sponsors. Reference in this regard was placed on the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (282 ITR 273) wherein, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court had held that services provided to a telephone subscriber does not involve „right to use‟ equipment. The Learned Senior Counsel for GCC impressed upon the fact that GCC neither owned any equipment nor advertising spaces nor did it have any ownership over the hoardings or other advertising sites. The stadiums in…

M/S. Global Cricket Corporation Pte. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ADIT (Int. Taxation) - 3(1), Mumbai

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, and cross-objection by the Assessee are disposed off as infructuous

ITA 3135/MUM/2006[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2022AY 2002-2003
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147

…n any equipment (except computer equipment). He further submitted alleged equipments were not at the disposal of GCC or the sponsors. Reference in this regard was placed on the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (282 ITR 273) wherein, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court had held that services provided to a telephone subscriber does not involve „right to use‟ equipment. The Learned Senior Counsel for GCC impressed upon the fact that GCC neither owned any equipment nor advertising spaces nor did it have any ownership over the hoardings or other advertising sites. The stadiums in…

ADIT (It)-3(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Global Cricket Corporation Pte. Ltd., Mumbai

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, and cross-objection by the Assessee are disposed off as infructuous

ITA 3130/MUM/2006[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2022AY 2002-2003
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147

…n any equipment (except computer equipment). He further submitted alleged equipments were not at the disposal of GCC or the sponsors. Reference in this regard was placed on the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (282 ITR 273) wherein, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court had held that services provided to a telephone subscriber does not involve „right to use‟ equipment. The Learned Senior Counsel for GCC impressed upon the fact that GCC neither owned any equipment nor advertising spaces nor did it have any ownership over the hoardings or other advertising sites. The stadiums in…

ITO-33(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Shri Vikram Baijnath Agarwal, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed and cross objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 103/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleincome Tax Officer – 33(1)(2) V. Shri Vikrambaijnath Agarwal Room No. 945, 9Th Floor 2003/04, Birchwood Raheja Villows Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex Lokhandwala Township Nr Mahindra Gate 4 Kandivali (E), Mumbai - 400101 Bandra(E), Mumbai - 400051 Pan: Adepa8582C Appellant Respondent

Section 142Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

…would be at all appropriate to allow the position to be changed in a subsequent year. (1992) 193 ITR 321 (329) RadhasoamiSatsgang vs. CIT ,Pr. CIT v M/s. Quest Investment Advisors Pvt. Ltd. [2018] 409 ITR 545 (Bom) Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Vs. Union of India 282 ITR 273(SC) 36. Finding of earlier years on same facts relevant. Lalludas Children Trust vs. CIT (2001) 251 ITR 50 (Guj) 37. Without prejudice to above the assessee has adopted the recognised method of valuation. The rate of tax being the same the method adopted by the Assessee may to be directed to be followed. Without prejudice to above if the method a…

Teesta Urja Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-25(2), New Delhi

In the result, for statistical purposes, this appeal is

ITA 7225/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2022AY 2014-15
Section 143(3)Section 57

…ter was squarely covered under the principle of consistency thereby overlooking the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case (i) Radhasoami Satsang vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (193 ITR 321) and (ii) Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Union of India (282 ITR 273/3 STT 245) 7) That the appellant craves the leave to add, modify, amend or delete any or all the grounds of appeal.” (B) In this case, the assessee is a public sector undertaking of the Government of Sikim. Assessment order dated 28/12/2016 was passed u/s 143(3) of Income Tax Act, wherein the assessee’s income was determined at Rs.9,02,68,782/-…

M/S. Course5 Intelligence Private Limited (Formerly Cross Tab Marketing Services Private Limited), Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 2(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 15/BANG/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Course5 Intelligence Pvt. Ltd., (Formerly Cross Tab Marketing Services The Deputy Pvt. Ltd.) Commissioner Of No. 422, 80 Feet Income Tax, Road, Circle – 2(1)(1), 6Th Block, Vs. Bangalore. Koramangala, Bangalore – 560 095. Pan: Aabcc6525A Appellant Respondent : Shri Padam Chand Khincha, Assessee By Ca : Shri Srinivas Rao Bandaru, Revenue By Jcit Dr Date Of Hearing : 14-07-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 18-08-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 14/10/2019 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-2, Bangalore For A.Y. 2013-14 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Learned Assessing Officer Had Erred In Passing The Order In The Manner Passed By Him & The Learned Cit (A) Has Erred In Partially Confirming The Same. The Orders Passed Being Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed.

For Respondent: Shri Padam Chand Khincha
Section 10ASection 143(2)Section 234B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/s. Course5 Intelligence Pvt. Ltd., (Formerly Cross Tab Marketing Services The Deputy Pvt. Ltd.) Commissioner of No. 422, 80 Feet Income Tax, Road, Circle – 2(1)(1), 6th Block, Vs. Bangalore. Koramangala, Bangalore – 560 095. PAN: AABCC6525A APPELLANT RESPONDENT : Shri Padam Chand Khincha, Assessee by CA : Shri Srinivas Rao Bandaru, Revenue by JCIT DR Date of Hearing : 14-07-2022 Date of Pronouncement : 18-08-2022 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICI…

ITO 7(3)(4), Mumbai vs. Prabhadevi Properties & Trading Company Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5873/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleincome Tax Officer – 7(3)(4) V. M/S. Prabhadevi Properties & Trading Company Ltd., Cgo Building, 8Th Floor, Room No. 805 “The Peregrine” 400 Pratishtha Bhavan, M.K. Road Veer Savarkar Marg Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400025 Pan: Aaacp4718R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Madhur Agarwal & Shri Atul Suraiya Department By : Shri Jagdish Jangid

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal &For Respondent: Shri Jagdish Jangid
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

…benefit of mutuality, the Revenue has not challenged the same before the Tribunal. Therefore, the Assessee submits that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Radhasoami Satsang v CIT 193 IT 321 (SC) and Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited v UOI 282 ITR 273 (SC), it 15 Prabhadevi Properties & Trading Company Ltd., is not open to the revenue to argue contrary to the accepted position of the earlier years. 2. The Assessee further submits that the Assessing officer in the assessment order has not given any finding that the Assessee is not eligible for benefit of mutuality but has merely stated that the…

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax 2(1), Raipur (Cg) vs. Shri Shri Arun Singhania, Raipur (Cg)

In the result, appeal of the Revenue being bereft of any merit is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 313/BIL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur28 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No. 313/Rpr/2016 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-2(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Shri Arun Singhania Gokul, Geeta Nagar, G.E. Road, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Akhps6503R

For Appellant: Shri Amit M Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ रायपुर म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं. / ITA No. 313/RPR/2016 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-2(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/s. Shri Arun Singhania Gokul, Geeta Nagar, G.E. Road, Raipur (C.G.) PAN : AKHPS6503R ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee by :Shri Amit M Jain, CA Revenue by :Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR 2 DCIT Vs. Arun Singhania सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date of Hearing : 25.07.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख / Dat…

Cricket Club of India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT 1, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3282/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Us:-

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

…rties have allowed that position to be sustained by not challenging the order, it would not be at all appropriate to allow the position to be changed in a subsequent year. b) Decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of BSNL vs Union of India reported in 282 ITR 273 (SC) wherein it was held as under:- 20. The decisions cited have uniformly held that res judicata does not apply in matters pertaining to tax for different assessment years because res judicata applies to debar Courts from entertaining issues on the same cause of action whereas the cause of action for each assessment year is distinct. The Courts…

M/S. Anand Projects Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT-2, Mumbai

ITA 813/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Blem/S. Anand Projects Limited V. Pr.Cit – 2 19/3, Sujata Building Room No. 344, 3Rd Floor Rani Sati Marg, Malad (East) Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai-400097 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaact1389G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Chetan Shah Department By : Smt Shailaja Rai

For Appellant: Shri Chetan ShahFor Respondent: Smt Shailaja Rai
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…hat restrict its applicability only to that decision and the Court has made it clear that the decision should not be taken as an authority for general applicability. 8. However, subsequently the Apex Court in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. Union of India [2006] 282 ITR 273 has after referring to the decision of Radhasoami Satsang (supra) has observed as under :-- "20. The decisions cited have uniformly held that res judicata does not apply in matters pertaining to tax for different assessment years because res judicata applies to debar courts from entertaining issues on the same cause of action whereas the cause of…

ACIT, Delhi vs. M/S. Unitech Wireless Tamilnadu Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the ground of appeal raised by the revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2926/DEL/2015[2012-13 (F.Y. 2011-12)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2022

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Deepak Chopra, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 133ASection 194HSection 201(1)

…nd his dealers and hence the agreement establishes principal and agent relationship between the two parties and therefore, any discount, commission made to such parties are liable for deduction to tax at source u/s 194H of the Act. In the case of BSNL Vs. UOI 282 ITR 273 the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that telephone service is nothing but a service. There is no sales element apart from the obvious one related to the hand set. It is also held that the SIM Card sold to the customer is not goods sold but supplied as a part of service. Against this principle of the Hon’ble Supreme Court the appellant relied on the de…

ACIT, Delhi vs. M/S. Unitech Wireless Tamilnadu Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the ground of appeal raised by the revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2925/DEL/2015[2011-12 (F.Y. 2010-11)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2022

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Deepak Chopra, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 133ASection 194HSection 201(1)

…nd his dealers and hence the agreement establishes principal and agent relationship between the two parties and therefore, any discount, commission made to such parties are liable for deduction to tax at source u/s 194H of the Act. In the case of BSNL Vs. UOI 282 ITR 273 the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that telephone service is nothing but a service. There is no sales element apart from the obvious one related to the hand set. It is also held that the SIM Card sold to the customer is not goods sold but supplied as a part of service. Against this principle of the Hon’ble Supreme Court the appellant relied on the de…

M/S. Unitech Wireless (Tamilnadu) Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the ground of appeal raised by the revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2356/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Deepak Chopra, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 133ASection 194HSection 201(1)

…nd his dealers and hence the agreement establishes principal and agent relationship between the two parties and therefore, any discount, commission made to such parties are liable for deduction to tax at source u/s 194H of the Act. In the case of BSNL Vs. UOI 282 ITR 273 the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that telephone service is nothing but a service. There is no sales element apart from the obvious one related to the hand set. It is also held that the SIM Card sold to the customer is not goods sold but supplied as a part of service. Against this principle of the Hon’ble Supreme Court the appellant relied on the de…