Chamber of Tax Consultants & Anr. v. UOI & Ors.

400 ITR 178High Court2018#14216 most cited
7

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2023 to 2026.

Sections most often in play

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 148Section 148ASection 250Section 270A

Issues it is cited on

section 145aicdssection 29section 270asection 145section 43income from other sourcessection 115section 143(2)section 68section 11section 142(1)

Judgments citing Chamber of Tax Consultants & Anr. v. UOI & Ors.

ORIENT OVERSEAS CONTAINER LINE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (INT) TAX CIRCLE 3(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6570/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhailorient Overseas Container Line Limited, C/O Oocl (India) Private Limited, Icc Chambers, 5Th Floor, Saki Vihar Road, Opp. Santogen Silk Mills, Powai, ............... Appellant Mumbai - 400072 Pan : Aaaco5679E V/S Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (International Taxation), Circle – 3(2)(2), ……………… Respondent 6Th Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai - 400051

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 244ASection 44B

…for determining he receipts or turnover, as the case may be. " 29. Thus, reliance placed by the DRP on the aforesaid Circular isnot valid since Delhi High Court in the case of Chamber of Tax Consultants v. Union of India [2017] 87 taxmann.com 92/252 Taxman 77/400 ITR 178 (Delhi) held that the aforesaid Circular was ultra vires the provisions of the Act and liable to be struck down. Also, the amendment was introduced vide Finance Act 2018 to bring certainty on the issue of applicability of ICDS and not to validate the circular. Even otherwise, in the aforesaid Circular, CBDT has also clarified that where there is…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, SURAT, SURAT vs. SAHAJANAND MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, SURAT

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed whereas CO of assessee is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 366/SRT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kammble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.364 & 366/Srt/2025 Ays: (2020-21 & 2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Dcit, Vs. Sahajanand Medical Technologies Central Circle – 4, Limited, Surat 221, C-Wing, Kanakia Atrium Andheri Kurla Road, Jb Nagar, Andheri East, Mumbai - 400059 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aafcs7694L (Appellant) (Respondent) Co. No.11/Srt/2025 (Ay 2018-19) [Arising Out Of Ita No.366/Srt/2025] Sahajanand Medical Technologies Vs. Dcit, Limited, Central Circle – 4, 221, C-Wing, Kanakia Atrium Andheri Surat Kurla Road, Jb Nagar, Andheri East, Mumbai - 400059 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aafcs7694L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Rajesh C. Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri Ravinder Sindhu, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 28/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19/09/2025

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 35(1)(iv)Section 80G

…the Act. 5.1 The CIT(A) has reproduced relevant portions of the order of AO and submission of the appellant before him. The appellant had relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Chamber of Tax Consultants & Anr vs. UOI & Ors., (2018) 400 ITR 178 (Del). The CIT(A) observed that the ICDS IV itself states that if there is conflict between the Income-tax Act and ICDS, provisions of the Act will prevail. He observed that the actual income has been offered to tax and the addition made by the AO is the notional exchange gain, which cannot be added for taxation. 5.2 Before us, the learned Commis…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, SURAT, SURAT vs. SAHAJANAND MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, SURAT

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed whereas CO of assessee is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 364/SRT/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kammble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.364 & 366/Srt/2025 Ays: (2020-21 & 2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Dcit, Vs. Sahajanand Medical Technologies Central Circle – 4, Limited, Surat 221, C-Wing, Kanakia Atrium Andheri Kurla Road, Jb Nagar, Andheri East, Mumbai - 400059 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aafcs7694L (Appellant) (Respondent) Co. No.11/Srt/2025 (Ay 2018-19) [Arising Out Of Ita No.366/Srt/2025] Sahajanand Medical Technologies Vs. Dcit, Limited, Central Circle – 4, 221, C-Wing, Kanakia Atrium Andheri Surat Kurla Road, Jb Nagar, Andheri East, Mumbai - 400059 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aafcs7694L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Rajesh C. Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri Ravinder Sindhu, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 28/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19/09/2025

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 35(1)(iv)Section 80G

…the Act. 5.1 The CIT(A) has reproduced relevant portions of the order of AO and submission of the appellant before him. The appellant had relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Chamber of Tax Consultants & Anr vs. UOI & Ors., (2018) 400 ITR 178 (Del). The CIT(A) observed that the ICDS IV itself states that if there is conflict between the Income-tax Act and ICDS, provisions of the Act will prevail. He observed that the actual income has been offered to tax and the addition made by the AO is the notional exchange gain, which cannot be added for taxation. 5.2 Before us, the learned Commis…

ORIENT OVERSEAS CONTAINER LINE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIRCLE 3(2)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 2129/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jun 2025AY 2022-23
For Respondent: \nShri Krishna Kumar
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 244ASection 44B

…ermining he receipts or turnover, as the case may\nbe.\"\n29.\nThus, reliance placed by the DRP on the aforesaid Circular is\nnot valid since Delhi High Court in the case of Chamber of Tax\nConsultants v. Union of India [2017] 87 taxmann.com 92/252\nTaxman 77/400 ITR 178 (Delhi) held that the aforesaid Circular\nwas ultra vires the provisions of the Act and liable to be struck\ndown. Also, the amendment was introduced vide Finance Act\n2018 to bring certainty on the issue of applicability of ICDS and\nnot to validate the circular. Even otherwise, in the aforesaid\nCircular, CBDT has also clarified that where ther…

ARYACON CONTRACTORS AND ENGINEERS PVT LTD,PERUMBAVOOR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1, ALUVA

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

ITA 853/COCH/2023[AY 2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 Jan 2025

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessmentyear:2017-18

For Appellant: Shri. Thomas Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Snr AR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 43C

…ue shall include retention money. ITANo. 853/Coch/2023 Aaryacon, Kerala Page 7 of 11 9.2 We take a note of the fact of the judgment of Hon’ble High court of Delhi in the case of The Chamber of Tax Consultants &Anr. V. Union of India & Ors. (DEL-HC) : (2017) 400 ITR 178, in relation to ICDS – III the relevant paragraph isreproduced below: “ICDS III 69. Turning now to ICDS-III which relates to construction contracts, para 10 thereof states that retention money would be a part of the contract and the same has to be assessed to tax based on “proportionate computation” method. This is reiterated in answer to Quest…

BAJAJ FINANCE LIMITED,PUNE vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3, PUNE, PUNE

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 544/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Pune23 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Mr. Nikhil MuthaFor Respondent: Shri J.P. Chandraker
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(vii)Section 43D

…ered accordingly. 8.1. We make it clear before parting that both the learned representatives had thrown sufficient light on the issue of applicability of sec.145(2) of the Act as well as The Chamber of Tax Consultants & Anr. vs., Union of India & Ors. [2018] 400 ITR 178 (Del.). We find that once the foregoing exclusion clause in the Income Computation and Disclosure Standards “ICDS” itself is clear enough yielding the space in favour of the provisions of the Act having overriding effect, there is hardly much a need for us to deal with the same at this stage. 9. This assessee’s appeal is allowed in above terms.”…

BAJAJ FINANCE LIMITED,PUNE vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3, PUNE

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 413/PUN/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Gd Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr. Percy Pardiwalla &For Respondent: Shri B. Koteswara Rao
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viii)Section 43D

…ng that both the learned representatives had thrown sufficient light on the issue of applicability of sec.145(2) of the Act as well as The 24 ITA.No.413/PUN./2022 Bajaj Finance Limited, Pune. Chamber of Tax Consultants & Anr. vs., Union of India & Ors. [2018] 400 ITR 178 (Del.). We find that once the foregoing exclusion clause in the Income Computation and Disclosure Standards “ICDS” itself is clear enough yielding the space in favour of the provisions of the Act having overriding effect, there is hardly much a need for us to deal with the same at this stage. 9. This assessee’s appeal is allowed in above terms.…

Chamber of Tax Consultants & Anr. v. UOI & Ors. (400 ITR 178) — Cited in 7 Judgments | BharatTax