CIT v. A.R.J. Security Printer and CIT v. Neo Poly Pack (P.) Ltd.

245 ITR 4922High Court2000#24057 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 115JB Section 131 Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144 Section 144B

Judgments citing CIT v. A.R.J. Security Printer and CIT v. Neo Poly Pack (P.) Ltd.

GOVINDAM BRJ INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT CIR-6,JPR, JAIPUR

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1115/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Somani, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 234ASection 234BSection 250Section 270A(1)Section 271Section 44A

…he other and parties have been allowed that position to be sustained by not\nchallenging the order, it may not be appropriate to allow that position to be changed in a\nsubsequent year.\nCIT v. A.R.J. Security Printer and CIT v. Neo Poly Pack (P.) Ltd. [2000] 245 ITR 4922\n(Delhi)\nThe Delhi High Courtheld that even when the doctrine of res judicata does not apply to\nincome-tax proceedings, where an issue has been decided consistently in a particular\nmanner for earlier assessment years, the same view should prevail, even during the\nsubsequent years unless there is a material change in the facts. The law is, th…

GOVINDAM BRJ INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT CIR-6,JPR, JAIPUR

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1114/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Somani, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 234ASection 234BSection 250Section 270A(1)Section 271Section 44A

…he other and parties have been allowed that position to be sustained by not challenging the order, it may not be appropriate to allow that position to be changed in a subsequent year.  CIT v. A.R.J. Security Printer and CIT v. Neo Poly Pack (P.) Ltd. [2000] 245 ITR 4922 (Delhi) The Delhi High Courtheld that even when the doctrine of res judicata does not apply to income-tax proceedings, where an issue has been decided consistently in a particular manner for earlier assessment years, the same view should prevail, even during the subsequent years unless there is a material change in the facts. The law is, therefo…

ITO 28(3)(4), NAVI MUMBAI vs. VARSHA ENTEPRISES, NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed in part

ITA 4649/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Nov 2016AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Miss Mahua Sarkar

Section 144Section 44A

…repose in and set eat rest judicata and quasi-judicial controversies as it must in other sphere of human activity.(p. 10) Following the above decision the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. A.R,J. Security Printer and CIT v. Neo Poly Pack (P.) Ltd. [2000] 245 ITR 4922 (Delhi) held that even when the doctrine of res judicata does not apply to income-tax proceedings, where an issue has been decided consistently in a particular manner for earlier assessment years, the same view should prevail, even during the subsequent years unless there is: a material change in the facts. The law is, therefore, fairly well set…