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

Poona Club Ltd., Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 4, Pune

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

ITA 1653/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

For Appellant: Shri Neelesh KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri M. G. Jasnani
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…ranting different view, no authority of the quasi judicial or 22 Poona Club Ltd. 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…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune vs. M/S. Poona Club Ltd., Pune

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

ITA 1236/PUN/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

For Appellant: Shri Neelesh KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri M. G. Jasnani
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…ranting different view, no authority of the quasi judicial or 22 Poona Club Ltd. 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…

Sir Ratan Tata Trust, Mumbai vs. CIT (Exemption), Mumbai

ITA 773/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Feb 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 773/मुं/2021 (िन.व.2016-17) Sir Ratan Tata Trust, Bombay House, 24, Homi Modi Street, Fort, Mumbai-400001. Pan: Aaats1013P ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Cit (Exemptions), Room No.617, 6Th Floor, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai-400012 ..... "ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Sh. Sukhsagar Syal, Advocate "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Sh. Amol Kirtane, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 15/12/2021 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 16/02/2022 आदेश/ Order

For Appellant: Sh. Sukhsagar Syal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Amol Kirtane, CIT-DR
Section 11(5)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…

Commercial Auto Sales Pvt. Ltd., Allahabad vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax Centralized Processing Centre, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is in ITA No

ITA 15/ALLD/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad20 Jan 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Sh.S K Jaiswal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ALLAHABAD BENCH, ALLAHABAD BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.15/Alld./2021 Assessment Year: 2019-20 M/s. Commercial Auto Sales Assistant Director of Income Private Limited v. Tax(CPC), Centralized 4-C, Maharishi Dayanand Marg Processing Center , Allahabad, U.P. Bengaluru-560500 (Jurisdictional A0: Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-II, Allahabad, U.P.) PAN:AABCC3962F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Sh.S K Jaiswal, CA Respondent by: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR Date of hearing: 23.12. 2021 Date of pronouncement…

Sri Rajeswari Farms vs. Income Tax Officer

In the result, I pass the following:

WP/12097/2021HC Karnataka08 Dec 2021

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice S.R.Krishna Kumar Writ Petition No.12097 Of 2021 (T-It) Between: 1. Sri Rajeswari Farms (Partnership Firm) No.451, 64Th Cross Vth Block, Rajajinagar Bangalore-560 010 Rep By Its Partner Sri K.Janardhana Naidu 2. Sri K Janardhana Naidu S/O K Raghavalu Naidu Aged 72 Years 3. Smt Rajeswari W/O Sri K Janardhana Naidu Aged 63 Years 4. Smt Kamalamma W/O Late Chengama Naidu Aged 90 Years 5. Sri J.Vivek S/O Sri K.Janardhana Naidu Aged 40 Years 6. Sri J.Ajith Raj S/O Sri K.Janardhana Naidu Aged 36 Years Petitioners 2 To 6 Are R/At No.451, 64Th Cross Vth Block, Rajajinagar Bangalore-560 010 …Petitioners (By Sri M.V.Sheshachala, Senior Counsel For Sri Aravind V.Chavan, Advocate)

Section 143

…1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.12097 OF 2021 (T-IT) BETWEEN: 1. SRI RAJESWARI FARMS (PARTNERSHIP FIRM) NO.451, 64TH CROSS VTH BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR BANGALORE-560 010 REP BY ITS PARTNER SRI K.JANARDHANA NAIDU 2. SRI K JANARDHANA NAIDU S/O K RAGHAVALU NAIDU AGED 72 YEARS 3. SMT RAJESWARI W/O SRI K JANARDHANA NAIDU AGED 63 YEARS 4. SMT KAMALAMMA W/O LATE CHENGAMA NAIDU AGED 90 YEARS 5. SRI J.VIVEK S/O SRI K.JANARDHANA NAIDU AGED 40 YEARS 6. SRI J.AJITH RAJ S/O SRI K.JANAR…

ITO, Meerut vs. M/S Tata Teleservices Ltd., Meerut

The appeals of the Department are dismissed

ITA 1686/DEL/2011[2009-10 (F.Y. 2008-09)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Sept 2021
Section 194HSection 201Section 201(1)

…nt’s case is he judgment of the ITAT, Cochin Bench in the case of M/s. ITO vs. M/s Tata Teleservices Limited Vodafone Essar Cellular Limited Vs. The ACIT(TDS), Kochi, ITA Nos. 106- 113/Coch/2009 dated 30.04.2009. In Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Vs. UOI (2006), 282 ITR 273 (SC), the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the SIM cards are “goods, sale of which qualifies as sales within the meaning of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 for the purpose of levy of Sales Tax. “Goods” may be tangible property or an intangible one. It would become goods provided it has the attributes thereof having regard to (a) its utility, (b) its…

ITO, Meerut vs. M/S Tata Teleservices Ltd., Meerut

The appeals of the Department are dismissed

ITA 1685/DEL/2011[2008-09 (F.Y. 2007-08)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Sept 2021
Section 194HSection 201Section 201(1)

…nt’s case is he judgment of the ITAT, Cochin Bench in the case of M/s. ITO vs. M/s Tata Teleservices Limited Vodafone Essar Cellular Limited Vs. The ACIT(TDS), Kochi, ITA Nos. 106- 113/Coch/2009 dated 30.04.2009. In Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Vs. UOI (2006), 282 ITR 273 (SC), the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the SIM cards are “goods, sale of which qualifies as sales within the meaning of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 for the purpose of levy of Sales Tax. “Goods” may be tangible property or an intangible one. It would become goods provided it has the attributes thereof having regard to (a) its utility, (b) its…

M/S. Surzlon Global Services Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT-3, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 67/AHD/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Sept 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 67-68/Ahd/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2016-2017 & 2017-2018 M/S. Suzlon Global Services Limited, Principal Commissioner 5 Suzlon, Shrimali Society, Vs. Of Income-Tax, Near Shree Krishna Centre, Ahmedabad. Nr. Judges Bunglow Cross Road, Ahmedabad-380009. Pan: Aaics1406R

For Appellant: Shri T.P. Hemani Sr.Advocate, &For Respondent: Shri Mohd Usman, CIT.D.R
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(2)Section 32

…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.” 10.3 In view of the above and after considering the facts in totality, we hold that t…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(2), Hyderabad vs. Blend Colours Private Limited, Hyderabad

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

ITA 1185/HYD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Jul 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2015-16 Blend Colours Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Hyderabad. Income-Tax, Circle – 1(2), Pan – Aaccb 2492 A Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dy. Commissioner Of Vs Blend Colours Pvt. Ltd., Income-Tax, Hyderabad. Circle – 1(2), Hyderabad. Pan – Aaccb 2492 A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sidharth Toshnival Revenue By: Shri A. Sitarama Rao Date Of Hearing: 05/07/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 22/07/2021

For Appellant: Shri Sidharth ToshnivalFor Respondent: Shri A. Sitarama Rao
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)

…judicata is not applicable as each assessment year is a separate proceeding. Similar observations were made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of New Jehangir Vakil Mills Co Ltd. v. CIT (SC) 49 ITR 137, and Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. Union of India [2006] 282 ITR 273. Further in the case of CIT v. Seshasayee Industries Ltd. (Madras) 242 ITR 691, It was held by the Hon'ble Madras High Court that the fact that if :- 14 -: Blend Colours Pvt. Ltd., Hyd. claim was questioned in earlier years does not entitle the assessee to contend that the law would not be applied during the course of assessment year. Further i…

Blend Colours Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1137/HYD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Jul 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2015-16 Blend Colours Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Hyderabad. Income-Tax, Circle – 1(2), Pan – Aaccb 2492 A Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dy. Commissioner Of Vs Blend Colours Pvt. Ltd., Income-Tax, Hyderabad. Circle – 1(2), Hyderabad. Pan – Aaccb 2492 A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sidharth Toshnival Revenue By: Shri A. Sitarama Rao Date Of Hearing: 05/07/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 22/07/2021

For Appellant: Shri Sidharth ToshnivalFor Respondent: Shri A. Sitarama Rao
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)

…judicata is not applicable as each assessment year is a separate proceeding. Similar observations were made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of New Jehangir Vakil Mills Co Ltd. v. CIT (SC) 49 ITR 137, and Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. Union of India [2006] 282 ITR 273. Further in the case of CIT v. Seshasayee Industries Ltd. (Madras) 242 ITR 691, It was held by the Hon'ble Madras High Court that the fact that if :- 14 -: Blend Colours Pvt. Ltd., Hyd. claim was questioned in earlier years does not entitle the assessee to contend that the law would not be applied during the course of assessment year. Further i…

Lubrizol India P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Ltu-2, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6393/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 May 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanआअसं. 6393/मुं/2017 (िन. व. 2013-14) M/S Lubrizol India Pvt. Ltd. 9/3, Thane Belapur Road, Turbhe, Navi Mumbai-400705. Pan: Aaacl 0126H ...... अपीलाथ- /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Dcit, Ltu-2, 29Th Floor, Centre No.1, World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parede, Mumbai 400005 ..... .ितवाद0/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Percy J. PardiwalaFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Mishra
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 234C

…is a 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 demonstra…

The Dy. CIT, Circle-1(2), Vadodara vs. M/S. Web Gazer Software Company, Vadodara

ITA 1559/AHD/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Feb 2021AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri M.J. Shah &For Respondent: Shri Lalit P. Jain, Sr.D.R
Section 10ASection 10BSection 14

…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. 11.1 Moving further we note that the ld. AR of the assessee has referred to order of this tribunal in case of Quality BPO Services Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 120/Ahd/2012 and contended that the assessee case is covered by this order wherein it was held that the letter of approval received from STPL is a proper approval, as required by the provisions o…

NA vs. Ari Oil Products P. Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 6576/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No. 8665/Mum/2010 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2004-05) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No. 6576/Mum/2012 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No. 8553/Mum/2011 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) M/S. Navsari Oil Products Pvt.Ltd. Ito-Cc 7(1)(3) बनाम C/O Vvf Limited, Plot No.109 Aaykar Bhavan / Vs. Sion (East), Mumbai-400 025 Mumbai – 400 020 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacn-1387-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Madhur Agarwal-Ld.Ar Revenue By : Shri Tharian Oommen-Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 01/02/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 09/02/2021 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Tharian Oommen-Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 25FSection 57Section 80

…is a 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. The decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in Radhasoami Satsang V/s CIT (193 ITR 321) also favor the same proposition. 8. Therefore, on the facts and circumstances, the action of Ld. AO in disturbing the rental / lease income as ‘Business Income’ could not be…

J.R.D Tata Trust, Mumbai vs. CIT (E), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 3738/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Dec 2020AY 2014-15
Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)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…

Ratan Tata Trust, Mumbai vs. CIT (E), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 3737/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Dec 2020AY 2014-15
Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)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…

DCIT (International Taxation), New Delhi vs. M/S. Telstra Singapore Pte Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and appeal

ITA 6733/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vp & Shri N.K.Billaiya, Am [Through Video Conferencing]

For Appellant: Sh. S.K.Aggarwal, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Satpal Gulati, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144(3)Section 144CSection 9

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, "द"ल" "यायपीठ “डी”, नई "द"ल" म" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘D’, NEW DELHI सु"ी सुषमा चावला, उपा"य" एवं "ी एन. के. "ब"लैया, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, VP & SHRI N.K.BILLAIYA, AM [THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING] आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.1548/Del/2015 & 286/Del/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years 2011-12 & 2012-13 Telstra Singapore Pte.Ltd., Unit No.518/519/520, 5th Floor, Tower-B, DLF Towers, Jasola, New Delhi-110044. ..........अपीलाथ"/Appellant PAN-AADCT5366N vs The DCIT (International Taxation), …………. ""यथ" / Respondent Circle-3(1)(2), New Delhi. आयकर अपील सं…

M/S Telstra Singapore Pte. Ltd., Singapore vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and appeal

ITA 286/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vp & Shri N.K.Billaiya, Am [Through Video Conferencing]

For Appellant: Sh. S.K.Aggarwal, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Satpal Gulati, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144(3)Section 144CSection 9

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, "द"ल" "यायपीठ “डी”, नई "द"ल" म" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘D’, NEW DELHI सु"ी सुषमा चावला, उपा"य" एवं "ी एन. के. "ब"लैया, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, VP & SHRI N.K.BILLAIYA, AM [THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING] आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.1548/Del/2015 & 286/Del/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years 2011-12 & 2012-13 Telstra Singapore Pte.Ltd., Unit No.518/519/520, 5th Floor, Tower-B, DLF Towers, Jasola, New Delhi-110044. ..........अपीलाथ"/Appellant PAN-AADCT5366N vs The DCIT (International Taxation), …………. ""यथ" / Respondent Circle-3(1)(2), New Delhi. आयकर अपील सं…

Telstra Singapore Pte. Ltd, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, New Delhi

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and appeal

ITA 1548/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vp & Shri N.K.Billaiya, Am [Through Video Conferencing]

For Appellant: Sh. S.K.Aggarwal, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Satpal Gulati, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144(3)Section 144CSection 9

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, "द"ल" "यायपीठ “डी”, नई "द"ल" म" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘D’, NEW DELHI सु"ी सुषमा चावला, उपा"य" एवं "ी एन. के. "ब"लैया, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, VP & SHRI N.K.BILLAIYA, AM [THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING] आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.1548/Del/2015 & 286/Del/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years 2011-12 & 2012-13 Telstra Singapore Pte.Ltd., Unit No.518/519/520, 5th Floor, Tower-B, DLF Towers, Jasola, New Delhi-110044. ..........अपीलाथ"/Appellant PAN-AADCT5366N vs The DCIT (International Taxation), …………. ""यथ" / Respondent Circle-3(1)(2), New Delhi. आयकर अपील सं…

Telstra Singapore Pte. Ltd, Singapore vs. DCIT (International Taxation), New Delhi

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and appeal

ITA 3020/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vp & Shri N.K.Billaiya, Am [Through Video Conferencing]

For Appellant: Sh. S.K.Aggarwal, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Satpal Gulati, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144(3)Section 144CSection 9

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, "द"ल" "यायपीठ “डी”, नई "द"ल" म" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘D’, NEW DELHI सु"ी सुषमा चावला, उपा"य" एवं "ी एन. के. "ब"लैया, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, VP & SHRI N.K.BILLAIYA, AM [THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING] आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.1548/Del/2015 & 286/Del/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years 2011-12 & 2012-13 Telstra Singapore Pte.Ltd., Unit No.518/519/520, 5th Floor, Tower-B, DLF Towers, Jasola, New Delhi-110044. ..........अपीलाथ"/Appellant PAN-AADCT5366N vs The DCIT (International Taxation), …………. ""यथ" / Respondent Circle-3(1)(2), New Delhi. आयकर अपील सं…

ACIT 4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. The New Piece Goods Bazar Co. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the Revenues’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6496/MUM/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2020AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik (DR)For Respondent: Sh. B.V. Jhaveri (Adv.)
Section 143(3)Section 22Section 24

…der the Act, for which reference, for the sake of completeness of this order, may be made to the decisions in New Jehangir Vakil Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1963] 49 ITR 137 (SC); M.M. Ipoh v. CIT [1968] 67 ITR 106 (SC); and Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. UoI [2006] 282 ITR 273 (SC), the facts of each of which are also telling. Tax proceedings are not in the nature of lis, and their premise, it may be appreciated, is the correct assessment of income as per law (Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1993] 199 ITR 351 (Bom)(FB)). The decision in Radha Soami Satsang v. CIT [1992] 193 ITR 321 (SC), and the others following…