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

DCIT 7(1)-1, Mumbai vs. Goldman Sachs Assets Management (India) P.Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 835/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Goldman Sachs Asset Asst. Commissioner Of Management (India) Pvt. Vs. Income Tax, Range 7(1)(1), Ltd., 951A, Rational House, Room No. 23, Ground Floor, Appasaheb Marathe Marg Aayakar Bhavan, Mk Road, Prabhadevi, Mumbai- Mumbai-400020. 400025. Pan No. Aadcg0789J Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 Asst. Commissioner Of Goldman Sachs Asset Income Tax, Range 7(1)(1), Vs. Management (India) Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 23, Ground Floor, 951A, Rational House, Aayakarbhavan, Mk Road, Appasahebmarathe Marg Mumbai-400020. Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400025. Pan No. Aadcg0789J Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Madhur Aggarwal, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Anand Mohan, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

…stency would require that the orders of the Tribunal passed earlier for the same assessment year should be followed. In this regard, reliance is placed by him on the decision by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. UoI (2006) 282 ITR 273 (SC) and the order of the Tribunal in the case of Thomas Cook (India) Ltd. (ITA No. 1261 & 1238/Mum/2015). The Ld. counsel further submits that it is not open to the Revenue to challenge a comparable which has been held by the Tribunal as comparable in another case for the same year as it certainly cannot be said that a company is comparable to…

Goldman Sachs Asset Management (India) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT RG 7(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 502/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Goldman Sachs Asset Asst. Commissioner Of Management (India) Pvt. Vs. Income Tax, Range 7(1)(1), Ltd., 951A, Rational House, Room No. 23, Ground Floor, Appasaheb Marathe Marg Aayakar Bhavan, Mk Road, Prabhadevi, Mumbai- Mumbai-400020. 400025. Pan No. Aadcg0789J Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 Asst. Commissioner Of Goldman Sachs Asset Income Tax, Range 7(1)(1), Vs. Management (India) Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 23, Ground Floor, 951A, Rational House, Aayakarbhavan, Mk Road, Appasahebmarathe Marg Mumbai-400020. Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400025. Pan No. Aadcg0789J Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Madhur Aggarwal, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Anand Mohan, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

…stency would require that the orders of the Tribunal passed earlier for the same assessment year should be followed. In this regard, reliance is placed by him on the decision by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. UoI (2006) 282 ITR 273 (SC) and the order of the Tribunal in the case of Thomas Cook (India) Ltd. (ITA No. 1261 & 1238/Mum/2015). The Ld. counsel further submits that it is not open to the Revenue to challenge a comparable which has been held by the Tribunal as comparable in another case for the same year as it certainly cannot be said that a company is comparable to…

Mr. Nikhil Sawhney, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Noida

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1248/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Aug 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishimr. Nikhil Sawhney Acit, 17 – Sunder Nagar, Central Circle, Vs. New Delhi – 110 003. Noida. Pan: Aaups0222Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Rakhi Vimal, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143

…ited at the Bar. We think that the inviolable recourse is to apply the earliest view as the succeeding ones would fall in the category of per incuriam.‖ (emphasis supplied) xv. The Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd vs. Union of India (SC): 282 ITR 273 @ 286 has even gone to the extent of holding that in tax cases relating to a subsequent year of the same assessee 44 | P a g e involving the same issue as in the earlier year, the Court can differ from the view expressed if the case is distinguishable or is per incuriam. In that case, the jurisdiction of the Court to reconsider its earlier decis…

Lubrizol India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Ltu-2, Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed to the extent indicated in the order

ITA 6667/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.882/Mum/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2009-10) & आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.396/Mum/2015 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.6667/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2012-13) M/S. Lubrizol India Private Limited The Asstt. Commissioner Of Plant: 9/3, Thane Belapur Road Income Tax -Ltu बनाम/ Turbhe, Navi Mumbai – 400 705 29Th Floor, Centre No.1 Vs. Maharashtra World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade Cin: U23201Mh1966Ptc013538 Mumbai-400 005. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacl-0126- H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala-Ld. Sr. CounselFor Respondent: Shri Anand Mohan-Ld. CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92C(1)

…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 demonstrat…

Lubrizol India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT Ltu, Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed to the extent indicated in the order

ITA 396/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.882/Mum/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2009-10) & आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.396/Mum/2015 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.6667/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2012-13) M/S. Lubrizol India Private Limited The Asstt. Commissioner Of Plant: 9/3, Thane Belapur Road Income Tax -Ltu बनाम/ Turbhe, Navi Mumbai – 400 705 29Th Floor, Centre No.1 Vs. Maharashtra World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade Cin: U23201Mh1966Ptc013538 Mumbai-400 005. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacl-0126- H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala-Ld. Sr. CounselFor Respondent: Shri Anand Mohan-Ld. CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92C(1)

…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 demonstrat…

Lubrizol India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Ltu, Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed to the extent indicated in the order

ITA 882/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.882/Mum/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2009-10) & आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.396/Mum/2015 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.6667/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2012-13) M/S. Lubrizol India Private Limited The Asstt. Commissioner Of Plant: 9/3, Thane Belapur Road Income Tax -Ltu बनाम/ Turbhe, Navi Mumbai – 400 705 29Th Floor, Centre No.1 Vs. Maharashtra World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade Cin: U23201Mh1966Ptc013538 Mumbai-400 005. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacl-0126- H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala-Ld. Sr. CounselFor Respondent: Shri Anand Mohan-Ld. CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92C(1)

…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 demonstrat…

DCIT (Exemptions)-2(1), Mumbai vs. Tata Education and Deveopment Trust, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 1535/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2020AY 2012-13
Section 11Section 11(1)(c)Section 12A

…R 545 (Bom)], noted similar objection of the revenue before them, but relying on a subsequent judgment in the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. Union of India ITA Nos 1423, 1424 and 1535/Mum/2018 Assessment years: 2011-12 and 2012-13 Page 34 of 51 [2006] 282 ITR 273 (SC)] rejected the same. We were taken through relevant observations in these judicial precedents. It is thus submitted that the objection raised by the learned DR, therefore, cannot be accepted. Learned counsel submits that in any case promotion of international welfare in which India is interested cannot be said to be non-existent for the two y…

Tata Education and Deveopment Trust, Mumbai vs. ACIT(Exp)-2(1) Now Assessed by DCIT (Exemptions)-2(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 1424/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2020AY 2012-13
Section 11Section 11(1)(c)Section 12A

…R 545 (Bom)], noted similar objection of the revenue before them, but relying on a subsequent judgment in the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. Union of India ITA Nos 1423, 1424 and 1535/Mum/2018 Assessment years: 2011-12 and 2012-13 Page 34 of 51 [2006] 282 ITR 273 (SC)] rejected the same. We were taken through relevant observations in these judicial precedents. It is thus submitted that the objection raised by the learned DR, therefore, cannot be accepted. Learned counsel submits that in any case promotion of international welfare in which India is interested cannot be said to be non-existent for the two y…

Tata Education and Deveopment Trust, Mumbai vs. ACIT(Exp)-2(1) Now Assessed by DCIT (Exemptions)-2(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 1423/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2020AY 2011-12
Section 11Section 11(1)(c)Section 12A

…R 545 (Bom)], noted similar objection of the revenue before them, but relying on a subsequent judgment in the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. Union of India ITA Nos 1423, 1424 and 1535/Mum/2018 Assessment years: 2011-12 and 2012-13 Page 34 of 51 [2006] 282 ITR 273 (SC)] rejected the same. We were taken through relevant observations in these judicial precedents. It is thus submitted that the objection raised by the learned DR, therefore, cannot be accepted. Learned counsel submits that in any case promotion of international welfare in which India is interested cannot be said to be non-existent for the two y…

Tata Sons Private Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr.CIT-2, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1091/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Apr 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Tata Sons Pvt. Ltd., Pr. Cit 2, 24, Bombay House, Room No.552, Homi Mody Street, Vs. 5Th Floor, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 Aayakar Bhavan, Pan: Aaact4060A M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Percy Pardiwala, A.R. Ms. Arati Vissanji, A.R. Revenue By : Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 28.01.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.04.2020 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)Section 43BSection 57

…me Court in Radhasoami Satsang case as to applicability of rule of consistency would be fully applicable to the case of the assessee. The Ld. A.R. submitted that having regard to the subsequent decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of BSNL vs. UOI 282 ITR 273 and of the jurisdictional High Court 26 M/s. Tata Sons Pvt. Ltd. in the case of PCIT vs. Quest Investments advisors Pvt. Ltd. ITA No.280 of 2016, this principle would still be applicable and accordingly there is no basis nor change in facts and in law for the Ld. PCIT to exercise revisionary power. The Ld. A.R. finally prayed that the order of L…

Sandhu Builders, Mumbai vs. ACIT 23(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose and appeal of the appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 2887/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Sandhu Builders, Acit 23(3), 41, Sandhu House, Room No.104, Pali Hill, 1St Floor, Vs. Bandra (West), Matru Mandir, Mumbai – 400 050 Tardeo Road, Pan: Aaxfs4480K Mumbai – 400 007 Maharashtra (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Acit 23(3), M/S. Sandhu Builders, Room No.104, 41, Sandhu House, 1St Floor, Pali Hill, Vs. Matru Mandir, Bandra (West), Tardeo Road, Mumbai – 400 050 Pan: Aaxfs4480K Mumbai – 400 007 Maharashtra (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Vipul Joshi, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Surabhi Sharma, Sr. A.R. Date Of Hearing : 10.12.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.03.2020 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Joshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Surabhi Sharma, Sr. A.R

…ely applicable to the facts of the present case on the principle of consistency as laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Radhasoami Satsang vs. CIT 193 ITR 321 SC. Even the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the subsequent decision in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. vs. UOI (282 ITR 273 (SC) and the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in PCIT vs. Quest Investment Advisor Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No.280 of 2016) have held that the principle of consistency would be applicable unless there is a change of facts and change in law. In view of these facts and circumstances , we set aside the order of CIT(A) on the issue of enhancement of income and direct…

Adarsh Shiksha Sansthan, Delhi vs. ITO(Exemption), Ward-1(1), New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4793/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Mar 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu[Assessment Year: 2014-15]

For Appellant: Sh. A.K. Chadha, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Pradeep Singh Gautam, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(1)(d)Section 234BSection 250Section 250(4)

…: 2012-13 and the supporting documents thereof were submitted in assessment proceeding and it is settled law that no authority whether quasi judicial or judicial can generally be permitted to take a different view. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. vs. Union of India 282 ITR 273 (SC.) iii. appellant had correctly claimed the deduction of Rs. 18,06,448/- as application of fund in the ITR software of the appellant and due to genuine computer error and the data did not get transferred to the ITR downloaded from the site of Income Tax Department. 3. Appellant had furnished revised form 10B and revised computation of income u…

M/S Vidal Health Insurance Tpa Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), Bangalore

In the result appeals for A

ITA 1213/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Feb 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri. O.P. Meena

For Respondent: Shri. Ajay Rotti, C.A
Section 194JSection 201(1)Section 40Section 9(1)(iv)

…plicable to the present case. It also needs to be noted that the decision relied by the appellant have been taken into consideration in the verdict of orderable High Court in the Verizon (supra) case. In the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd vs union of India (282 ITR 273) relied by the appellant, the issue under consideration was the nature of the transaction by which mobile phone connections are enjoyed. It is a sale or is it a service or is it both? The question for payment of lease line was not before Hon’ble Court for adjudication. Therefore this decision will not be applicable in the case of the appellant.”…

Bodal Chemicals Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Circle-1, Ahmedabad

ITA 2249/AHD/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri M. K. Patel, A.RFor Respondent: Shri S. K. Dev, Sr. D.R
Section 32Section 43(1)

…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. 14. As, we have decided the main ground of appeal in favour of the assessee, we are…

The ACIT, Central Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Bodal Chemical Ltd., Ahmedabad

ITA 597/AHD/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Oct 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri M. K. Patel, A.RFor Respondent: Shri S. K. Dev, Sr. D.R
Section 32Section 43(1)

…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. 14. As, we have decided the main ground of appeal in favour of the assessee, we are…

M/S. Bodal Chemical Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Add.CIT., Range-1, Ahmedabad

ITA 42/AHD/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Oct 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri M. K. Patel, A.RFor Respondent: Shri S. K. Dev, Sr. D.R
Section 32Section 43(1)

…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. 14. As, we have decided the main ground of appeal in favour of the assessee, we are…

Bodal Chemicals Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Addl.CIT., Range-1, Ahmedabad

ITA 1439/AHD/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Oct 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri M. K. Patel, A.RFor Respondent: Shri S. K. Dev, Sr. D.R
Section 32Section 43(1)

…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. 14. As, we have decided the main ground of appeal in favour of the assessee, we are…

M/S. Surendranagar District Co-Op. Milk Producers Union Ltd., Surendranagar vs. The DCIT, Surendranagr Circle, Surendranagar

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 262/RJT/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot20 Sept 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.262-263/Rjt/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14) बनाम/ M/S.Surendranagar District D.C.I.T, Co-Op. Milk Producers Surendranagar Circle, Vs. Union Ltd. Surendranagar. Wadhwan City, Surendranagar "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaas8375B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, A.R ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Jitender Kumar, Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing 17/09/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement 20/09/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Ahmedabad [Ld. Cit(A) In Short] Of Even Dated 12/01/2018, Arising In The Matter Of Assessment Order Passed Under 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") Dated 26/03/2015 Relevant To Assessment Years (A.Ys) 20012-13 & 2013-14. Ita Nos.262-263/Rjt/2018 A.Y.S 2012-13 To 2013-14 First, We Take Up Ita No. 262/Rjt/2018 For A.Y. 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Kumar, DR
Section 194JSection 36Section 40Section 40A(3)Section 43BSection 48Section 80P(2)(b)Section 80P(2)(d)

…o 2013-14 (a) Res Judicata not applicable as each assessment year is a separate proceedings - M.M. Ipoh & Ors. Vs. CIT (SC) 67 ITR 106, New [ehanglr Vakil Mills Co. Ld. Vs. CIT (SC) 49 IR 137, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors. (SC) 282 ITR 273. (b) The fact that its claim was not questioned in earlier years does not entitle the assessee to contend that the law should not be applied during the A.Y. - CIT Vs. Seshasayee Industries Ltd. (Mad.) 242 ITR 691. (c) To perpetuate an error is not heroism - The doctrine of stare decisis should not deter the Court from overruling an earlier decisi…

The ITO, Ward-2(2), Jamnagar vs. Smt. Shitalben Saurabh Vora, Jamnagar

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 651/RJT/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot20 Sept 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.262-263/Rjt/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14) बनाम/ M/S.Surendranagar District D.C.I.T, Co-Op. Milk Producers Surendranagar Circle, Vs. Union Ltd. Surendranagar. Wadhwan City, Surendranagar "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaas8375B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, A.R ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Jitender Kumar, Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing 17/09/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement 20/09/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Ahmedabad [Ld. Cit(A) In Short] Of Even Dated 12/01/2018, Arising In The Matter Of Assessment Order Passed Under 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") Dated 26/03/2015 Relevant To Assessment Years (A.Ys) 20012-13 & 2013-14. Ita Nos.262-263/Rjt/2018 A.Y.S 2012-13 To 2013-14 First, We Take Up Ita No. 262/Rjt/2018 For A.Y. 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Kumar, DR
Section 194JSection 36Section 40Section 40A(3)Section 43BSection 48Section 80P(2)(b)Section 80P(2)(d)

…o 2013-14 (a) Res Judicata not applicable as each assessment year is a separate proceedings - M.M. Ipoh & Ors. Vs. CIT (SC) 67 ITR 106, New [ehanglr Vakil Mills Co. Ld. Vs. CIT (SC) 49 IR 137, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors. (SC) 282 ITR 273. (b) The fact that its claim was not questioned in earlier years does not entitle the assessee to contend that the law should not be applied during the A.Y. - CIT Vs. Seshasayee Industries Ltd. (Mad.) 242 ITR 691. (c) To perpetuate an error is not heroism - The doctrine of stare decisis should not deter the Court from overruling an earlier decisi…

Jayantilal B. Jain, Mumbai vs. DCIT 24(1), Mumbai

The appeal stand partly allowed

ITA 2241/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Chaudhary Arun Kumar Singh-DR
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…rein that 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. Vs. Union of India 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 a…