CIT v. B.R. Constructions

202 ITR 222High Court1993#1262 most cited

What is CIT v. B.R. Constructions authority for?

A judicial decision that is purely an estimation exercise not backed by any legal proposition does not form a binding judicial precedent.

90

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. B.R. Constructions · 202 ITR 222 · binding precedent · estimation exercise · no legal proposition · accommodation entries · bogus transactions

Sections most often in play

Section 144Section 153ASection 251(1)(a)Section 37(1)Section 68Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 263

Issues it is cited on

section 92(1)retrospective amendmentsection 251(1)section 251(1)(a)beneficial ownersection 251section 35transfer pricing adjustmententry operatorsection 92ca(3)dispute resolution panelbook profits

Judgments citing CIT v. B.R. Constructions

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Aurangabad vs. Endurance Technoligies Limited, Aurangabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 506/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandrasr No 1

For Appellant: S/Shri Nikhil Pathak andFor Respondent: S/Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR and
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 35Section 35(1)Section 80I

…case of ACIT vs. Ajeet Seeds Ltd. (supra) is per incuriam and is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 22. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to the decision of Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of B.R. Constructions reported in 202 ITR 222 (Full Bench) submitted that the Hon'ble High Court in the said decision has held that the decision, which is per incuriam is not a binding precedent. He accordingly submitted that since the said decision is not applicable to the facts of the present case, the argument of the Ld. DR on this issue has to be rejected outright. He submitted that a si…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Aurangabad vs. Endurance Technologies Limited, Aurangabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1660/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandrasr No 1

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 35Section 35(1)Section 80I

…case of ACIT vs. Ajeet Seeds Ltd. (supra) is per incuriam and is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 22. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to the decision of Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of B.R. Constructions reported in 202 ITR 222 (Full Bench) submitted that the Hon'ble High Court in the said decision has held that the decision, which is per incuriam is not a binding precedent. He accordingly submitted that since the said decision is not applicable to the facts of the present case, the argument of the Ld. DR on this issue has to be rejected outright. He submitted that a si…

Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(2)(1), Bengaluru, Bangalore vs. M/S. Bangalore Credit Co-Operative Society Limited, Bangalore

ITA 2348/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Sandeep Chalapathy, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Neha Sahay, D.R
Section 250

…but if it differs, the case should be referred to a Full Bench. This procedure would avoid unnecessary conflict and confusion that otherwise would prevail. The assessee also rely on the judgment of Andhra Pradesh Full Bench Decision in CIT v. B R Construction 202 ITR 222 for the above proposition. ITA Nos.2347 & 2348/Bang/2024 & CO Nos.4 & 5/Bang/2025 M/s. Bangalore Credit Co-operative Society Ltd., Bangalore Page 22 of 44 13.11 The Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in Full Bench Decision in CIT v. B R Construction 202 ITR 222 has also held as under - “The effect of binding precedents in India is that the decisi…

Income-Tax Officer, Ward-7(2)(1), Bengaluru vs. M/S. Bangalore Credit Co-Operative Society Limited, Bengaluru

ITA 2347/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Respondent: Sri Sandeep Chalapathy, A.R
Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

…but if it differs, the case should be referred to a Full Bench. This procedure would avoid unnecessary conflict and confusion that otherwise would prevail. The assessee also rely on the judgment of Andhra Pradesh Full Bench Decision in CIT v. B R Construction 202 ITR 222 for the above proposition. 13.11 The Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in Full Bench Decision in CIT v. B R Construction 202 ITR 222 has also held as under - “The effect of binding precedents in India is that the decisions of the Supreme Court are binding on all the courts. Indeed, article 141 of the Constitution embodies the rule of precedent.…

DCIT, Central Circle-18, New Delhi vs. Geeta Sharma, Ghaziabad

ITA 727/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

…0.15% to 0.5% commission in light of various judicial precedents. We are of the considered view that this is purely an estimation exercise not backed by any legal proposition so as to form a binding judicial precedent as per CIT Vs. B.R. Constructions (1995) 202 ITR 222 (FB)(AP). The Revenue also could not justify the impugned profit element adopted in the CIT(A)'s direction @ 2.5% once all what the assessee has done is to maintain some bogus transaction's books representing accommodation entries. We thus deem it a fit case to restrict the above profit element @ 2.5% to that @ 1% only with a rider that the same…

DCIT, Central Circle-18, New Delhi vs. Geeta Sharma, Ghaziabad

ITA 726/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2011-12 Vs. Sh. Vinay Sharma, Dcit, Central Circle-18, B-373, Swarnajyanti Puram, New Delhi Ghaziabad Pan: Bdqps4406L (Appellant) (Respondent) With C.O. No.60/Del/2019 [Arising Out Of Ita No.712/Del/2019] Assessment Year: 2011-12 Vs. Dcit, Sh. Vinay Sharma, B-373, Swarnajyanti Puram, Central Circle-18, Ghaziabad New Delhi Pan: Bdqps4406L (Appellant) (Respondent) With Ita Nos.716 & 717/Del/2019 Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Vs. Sh. Dheer Chand Sharma, Dcit, Central Circle-18, B-373, Swarnajyanti Puram, New Delhi Ghaziabad Pan: Bdlps0502C (Appellant) (Respondent) With C.O. Nos.64 & 65/Del/2019 [Arising Out Of Ita Nos.716 & 717/Del/2019] Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Vs. Dcit, Sh. Dheer Chand Sharma B-373, Swarnajyanti Puram, Central Circle-18, Ghaziabad New Delhi Pan: Bdlps0502C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 144Section 153ASection 37(1)

…e ITA Nos.712, 716, 717, 721, 722, 726 & 727/Del/2019 C.O. Nos.60, 64, 65, 69, 70, 74 & 75/Del/2019 this is purely an estimation exercise not backed by any legal proposition so as to form a binding judicial precedent as per CIT Vs. B.R. Constructions (1995) 202 ITR 222 (FB)(AP). The Revenue also could not justify the impugned profit element adopted in the CIT(A)’s direction @ 2.5% once all what the assessee has done is to maintain some bogus transaction’s books representing accommodation entries. We thus deem it a fit case to restrict the above profit element @ 2.5% to that @ 1% only with a rider that the same…

DCIT, Central Circle-18, New Delhi vs. Guru Prasad Sharma, Ghaziabad

ITA 722/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2011-12 Vs. Sh. Vinay Sharma, Dcit, Central Circle-18, B-373, Swarnajyanti Puram, New Delhi Ghaziabad Pan: Bdqps4406L (Appellant) (Respondent) With C.O. No.60/Del/2019 [Arising Out Of Ita No.712/Del/2019] Assessment Year: 2011-12 Vs. Dcit, Sh. Vinay Sharma, B-373, Swarnajyanti Puram, Central Circle-18, Ghaziabad New Delhi Pan: Bdqps4406L (Appellant) (Respondent) With Ita Nos.716 & 717/Del/2019 Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Vs. Sh. Dheer Chand Sharma, Dcit, Central Circle-18, B-373, Swarnajyanti Puram, New Delhi Ghaziabad Pan: Bdlps0502C (Appellant) (Respondent) With C.O. Nos.64 & 65/Del/2019 [Arising Out Of Ita Nos.716 & 717/Del/2019] Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Vs. Dcit, Sh. Dheer Chand Sharma B-373, Swarnajyanti Puram, Central Circle-18, Ghaziabad New Delhi Pan: Bdlps0502C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 144Section 153ASection 37(1)

…e ITA Nos.712, 716, 717, 721, 722, 726 & 727/Del/2019 C.O. Nos.60, 64, 65, 69, 70, 74 & 75/Del/2019 this is purely an estimation exercise not backed by any legal proposition so as to form a binding judicial precedent as per CIT Vs. B.R. Constructions (1995) 202 ITR 222 (FB)(AP). The Revenue also could not justify the impugned profit element adopted in the CIT(A)’s direction @ 2.5% once all what the assessee has done is to maintain some bogus transaction’s books representing accommodation entries. We thus deem it a fit case to restrict the above profit element @ 2.5% to that @ 1% only with a rider that the same…

DCIT, Central Circle-18, New Delhi vs. Guru Prasad Sharma, Ghaziabad

ITA 721/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2011-12 Vs. Sh. Vinay Sharma, Dcit, Central Circle-18, B-373, Swarnajyanti Puram, New Delhi Ghaziabad Pan: Bdqps4406L (Appellant) (Respondent) With C.O. No.60/Del/2019 [Arising Out Of Ita No.712/Del/2019] Assessment Year: 2011-12 Vs. Dcit, Sh. Vinay Sharma, B-373, Swarnajyanti Puram, Central Circle-18, Ghaziabad New Delhi Pan: Bdqps4406L (Appellant) (Respondent) With Ita Nos.716 & 717/Del/2019 Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Vs. Sh. Dheer Chand Sharma, Dcit, Central Circle-18, B-373, Swarnajyanti Puram, New Delhi Ghaziabad Pan: Bdlps0502C (Appellant) (Respondent) With C.O. Nos.64 & 65/Del/2019 [Arising Out Of Ita Nos.716 & 717/Del/2019] Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Vs. Dcit, Sh. Dheer Chand Sharma B-373, Swarnajyanti Puram, Central Circle-18, Ghaziabad New Delhi Pan: Bdlps0502C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 144Section 153ASection 37(1)

…e ITA Nos.712, 716, 717, 721, 722, 726 & 727/Del/2019 C.O. Nos.60, 64, 65, 69, 70, 74 & 75/Del/2019 this is purely an estimation exercise not backed by any legal proposition so as to form a binding judicial precedent as per CIT Vs. B.R. Constructions (1995) 202 ITR 222 (FB)(AP). The Revenue also could not justify the impugned profit element adopted in the CIT(A)’s direction @ 2.5% once all what the assessee has done is to maintain some bogus transaction’s books representing accommodation entries. We thus deem it a fit case to restrict the above profit element @ 2.5% to that @ 1% only with a rider that the same…

DCIT, Central Circle-18, New Delhi vs. Dheer Chand Sharma, Ghaziabadi

ITA 717/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2011-12 Vs. Sh. Vinay Sharma, Dcit, Central Circle-18, B-373, Swarnajyanti Puram, New Delhi Ghaziabad Pan: Bdqps4406L (Appellant) (Respondent) With C.O. No.60/Del/2019 [Arising Out Of Ita No.712/Del/2019] Assessment Year: 2011-12 Vs. Dcit, Sh. Vinay Sharma, B-373, Swarnajyanti Puram, Central Circle-18, Ghaziabad New Delhi Pan: Bdqps4406L (Appellant) (Respondent) With Ita Nos.716 & 717/Del/2019 Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Vs. Sh. Dheer Chand Sharma, Dcit, Central Circle-18, B-373, Swarnajyanti Puram, New Delhi Ghaziabad Pan: Bdlps0502C (Appellant) (Respondent) With C.O. Nos.64 & 65/Del/2019 [Arising Out Of Ita Nos.716 & 717/Del/2019] Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Vs. Dcit, Sh. Dheer Chand Sharma B-373, Swarnajyanti Puram, Central Circle-18, Ghaziabad New Delhi Pan: Bdlps0502C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 144Section 153ASection 37(1)

…e ITA Nos.712, 716, 717, 721, 722, 726 & 727/Del/2019 C.O. Nos.60, 64, 65, 69, 70, 74 & 75/Del/2019 this is purely an estimation exercise not backed by any legal proposition so as to form a binding judicial precedent as per CIT Vs. B.R. Constructions (1995) 202 ITR 222 (FB)(AP). The Revenue also could not justify the impugned profit element adopted in the CIT(A)’s direction @ 2.5% once all what the assessee has done is to maintain some bogus transaction’s books representing accommodation entries. We thus deem it a fit case to restrict the above profit element @ 2.5% to that @ 1% only with a rider that the same…

DCIT, Central Circle-18, New Delhi vs. Dheer Chand Sharma, Ghaziabadi

ITA 716/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2011-12 Vs. Sh. Vinay Sharma, Dcit, Central Circle-18, B-373, Swarnajyanti Puram, New Delhi Ghaziabad Pan: Bdqps4406L (Appellant) (Respondent) With C.O. No.60/Del/2019 [Arising Out Of Ita No.712/Del/2019] Assessment Year: 2011-12 Vs. Dcit, Sh. Vinay Sharma, B-373, Swarnajyanti Puram, Central Circle-18, Ghaziabad New Delhi Pan: Bdqps4406L (Appellant) (Respondent) With Ita Nos.716 & 717/Del/2019 Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Vs. Sh. Dheer Chand Sharma, Dcit, Central Circle-18, B-373, Swarnajyanti Puram, New Delhi Ghaziabad Pan: Bdlps0502C (Appellant) (Respondent) With C.O. Nos.64 & 65/Del/2019 [Arising Out Of Ita Nos.716 & 717/Del/2019] Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Vs. Dcit, Sh. Dheer Chand Sharma B-373, Swarnajyanti Puram, Central Circle-18, Ghaziabad New Delhi Pan: Bdlps0502C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 144Section 153ASection 37(1)

…e ITA Nos.712, 716, 717, 721, 722, 726 & 727/Del/2019 C.O. Nos.60, 64, 65, 69, 70, 74 & 75/Del/2019 this is purely an estimation exercise not backed by any legal proposition so as to form a binding judicial precedent as per CIT Vs. B.R. Constructions (1995) 202 ITR 222 (FB)(AP). The Revenue also could not justify the impugned profit element adopted in the CIT(A)’s direction @ 2.5% once all what the assessee has done is to maintain some bogus transaction’s books representing accommodation entries. We thus deem it a fit case to restrict the above profit element @ 2.5% to that @ 1% only with a rider that the same…

DCIT, Central Circle-18, Ghaziabad vs. Vinay Sharma, Ghaziabad

ITA 712/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2011-12 Vs. Sh. Vinay Sharma, Dcit, Central Circle-18, B-373, Swarnajyanti Puram, New Delhi Ghaziabad Pan: Bdqps4406L (Appellant) (Respondent) With C.O. No.60/Del/2019 [Arising Out Of Ita No.712/Del/2019] Assessment Year: 2011-12 Vs. Dcit, Sh. Vinay Sharma, B-373, Swarnajyanti Puram, Central Circle-18, Ghaziabad New Delhi Pan: Bdqps4406L (Appellant) (Respondent) With Ita Nos.716 & 717/Del/2019 Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Vs. Sh. Dheer Chand Sharma, Dcit, Central Circle-18, B-373, Swarnajyanti Puram, New Delhi Ghaziabad Pan: Bdlps0502C (Appellant) (Respondent) With C.O. Nos.64 & 65/Del/2019 [Arising Out Of Ita Nos.716 & 717/Del/2019] Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Vs. Dcit, Sh. Dheer Chand Sharma B-373, Swarnajyanti Puram, Central Circle-18, Ghaziabad New Delhi Pan: Bdlps0502C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 144Section 153ASection 37(1)

…e ITA Nos.712, 716, 717, 721, 722, 726 & 727/Del/2019 C.O. Nos.60, 64, 65, 69, 70, 74 & 75/Del/2019 this is purely an estimation exercise not backed by any legal proposition so as to form a binding judicial precedent as per CIT Vs. B.R. Constructions (1995) 202 ITR 222 (FB)(AP). The Revenue also could not justify the impugned profit element adopted in the CIT(A)’s direction @ 2.5% once all what the assessee has done is to maintain some bogus transaction’s books representing accommodation entries. We thus deem it a fit case to restrict the above profit element @ 2.5% to that @ 1% only with a rider that the same…

Shenhzhen Sdg Information Co. Ltd., Delhi vs. Circle Int. Taxation 3(1)(2), Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 746/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2017-18 Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Shenhzhen Sdg Information Co. Ltd., International Taxation-3, C/O- Tass Advisors Llp, 62, New Delhi Lower Ground Floor, Pocket 2, Jasola, New Delhi Pan: Aavcs7426C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Divyanshu Agrawal, Adv. Sh. Anubhav Rastogi, Adv. Department By Sh. Vijay B Vasanta, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 10.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 05.06.2025 Order

Section 263Section 44B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘d’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2017-18 Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Shenhzhen SDG Information Co. Ltd., International Taxation-3, C/o- Tass Advisors LLP, 62, New Delhi Lower Ground Floor, Pocket 2, Jasola, New Delhi PAN: AAVCS7426C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Divyanshu Agrawal, Adv. Sh. Anubhav Rastogi, Adv. Department by Sh. Vijay B Vasanta, CIT(DR) Date of hearing 10.03.2025 Date of pronouncement 05.06.2025 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM This asse…

Sharp Business Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 717/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2011-12 Vs. Sh. Vinay Sharma, Dcit, Central Circle-18, B-373, Swarnajyanti Puram, New Delhi Ghaziabad Pan: Bdqps4406L (Appellant) (Respondent) With C.O. No.60/Del/2019 [Arising Out Of Ita No.712/Del/2019] Assessment Year: 2011-12 Vs. Dcit, Sh. Vinay Sharma, B-373, Swarnajyanti Puram, Central Circle-18, Ghaziabad New Delhi Pan: Bdqps4406L (Appellant) (Respondent) With Ita Nos.716 & 717/Del/2019 Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Vs. Sh. Dheer Chand Sharma, Dcit, Central Circle-18, B-373, Swarnajyanti Puram, New Delhi Ghaziabad Pan: Bdlps0502C (Appellant) (Respondent) With C.O. Nos.64 & 65/Del/2019 [Arising Out Of Ita Nos.716 & 717/Del/2019] Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Vs. Dcit, Sh. Dheer Chand Sharma B-373, Swarnajyanti Puram, Central Circle-18, Ghaziabad New Delhi Pan: Bdlps0502C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 144Section 153ASection 37(1)

…e ITA Nos.712, 716, 717, 721, 722, 726 & 727/Del/2019 C.O. Nos.60, 64, 65, 69, 70, 74 & 75/Del/2019 this is purely an estimation exercise not backed by any legal proposition so as to form a binding judicial precedent as per CIT Vs. B.R. Constructions (1995) 202 ITR 222 (FB)(AP). The Revenue also could not justify the impugned profit element adopted in the CIT(A)’s direction @ 2.5% once all what the assessee has done is to maintain some bogus transaction’s books representing accommodation entries. We thus deem it a fit case to restrict the above profit element @ 2.5% to that @ 1% only with a rider that the same…

Pradeep Upasana Agro & Constructions Private Limited, Farrukhabad vs. Pr CIT-1 Agra, Agra

Appeal is allowed

ITA 91/AGR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Agra17 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: : Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2018-19

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80I

…’s reliance of tribunal’s above order is concerned, we make it clear that the said earlier bench had not examined the issue from the perspective of “preservation” and therefore, it ceases to be a binding precedent in light of CIT Vs. BR Constructions (1993) 202 ITR 222 (AP). That being the case, we conclude 2 | P a g e that once the assessee is held as engaged in the “preservation” of the eligible produce u/s. 80IB(11A), the learned PCIT could not have held it as not entitled for very deduction. We accordingly reverse the impugned section 263 revision directions in very terms. 5. This assessee’s appeal is allo…

Ajay Thakur, Dehradun vs. ITO, Ward-1(1)(1)1, Dehradun

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 60/DDN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun27 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Sh. Ajay Thakur, S/O- Sh. Surendra Singh, 31-Purbiya Ward-1(1)(1)1, Lines, Hospital Road, Dehradun Vikas Nagar, Dehradun Pan: Afkpt5059D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Rajiv Sahni, Ca Department By Sh. A.S. Rana, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 10.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27.01.2025 Order

Section 115BSection 147Section 2(14)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69

…would be applicable herein as per Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai v. Dilip Kumar and Company, (2018) 9 SCC 1 (SC) (FB) which was never considered in the tribunal’s earlier decision. We further draw support from CIT Vs. B.R. Constructions (AP) (1992) 202 ITR 222 (AP) (FB) that such an order of a learned coordinate bench not considering the settled principles of law, does not form a binding precedent. We accordingly accept the assesee’s instant first and foremost substantive ground and delete the impugned section 56(2)(vii)(b) addition of Rs.19,46,500/- in very terms. 3 | P a g e 7. Learned counsel submi…

Abdul Nayab Shaikh, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 23(1)(1), Maturmandir, Mumbai

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 4012/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Gagan Goyal

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 4Section 54Section 54F

…olliery Co. [1975] 101 ITR 79 have taken the opposite view. The Andhra Pradesh High Court first expressed the other view, then in Choudry's case [1980] 158 ITR 224 (AP). it took the view which we have taken and then again in B'. R. Construction,s' case [1993] 202 ITR 222 (AP) [FB]. it has gone back to the other view and reiterated the view taken inthe judgment under appeal. In RamanlalMudanlal v. CIT (1979) 116 ITR 657 Sabyasachi Mukharji J., speaking for a Bench of the Calcutta High Court, recognised the distinction in the language employed in section of the 1922 Act and section 4 of the present Act, but that wa…

Modi Entertainment Ltd vs. DCIT Circle 5 (1)

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is dismissed

ITA 3051/DEL/2007[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Apr 2024AY 2001-2002

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

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 10(33)Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 2Section 4

…dgment of a higher Court as per incurium. In this regard he has relied on following decisions:- 1. Cassel & Co. Ltd. vs. Broome [1972] 1 All ER 801 (House of Lords) - quoted in ITO v. Modern International : ITA No.1253/Kol/2011. 2. CIT v. B.R. Construction : 202 ITR 222 (AP)(FB). Thus, we are pitted against two decisions of Hon'ble jurisdictional high court taking divergent views and, under such circumstances we have to decide which decision to follow. We find from the decisions relied upon by Ld. Senior Counsel more particularly in the case of Bhika Ram (supra) that later pronouncement by a bench of co-equal s…

Tata Motors Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 2(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 631/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.631/मुं/2013 (िन.व. 2008-09) Tata Motors Limited Bombay House, 24,Homi Mody Street, Hutama Chowk, Mumbai – 400001. Pan: Aaact-2727-Q ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. The Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle -2(3), Mumbai. Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 ....."ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri J.D.Mistry, Sr.Advocate With Shri Nikhil Tiwari,Advocate "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Ms. Vatsala Jha, Cit-Dr & Shri Manoj Kumar Singh, Sr.Ar सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 10/11/2023 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 05/02/2024 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri J.D.Mistry, Sr.Advocate with Shri Nikhil Tiwari,AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Vatsala Jha, CIT-DR and Shri Manoj Kumar Singh, Sr.AR
Section 116Section 143(3)Section 92C

…are processed by several judges, the decision that is rendered even if not unanimous has the advantage of input from larger number of legally trained minds”. As observed by a Full Bench of Hon’ble AP High Court in the case of CIT Vs B R Constructions [(1994) 202 ITR 222 (AP-FC)], “The principles applicable to Courts in India were laid down by Subba Rao, J. (as he then was) in Dr. K.C. Nambiar v. State of Madras AIR 1953 Mad. 351, which were approved by a Full Bench of our High Court in M. Subbarayudu v. State AIR 1955 Andhra 87... A single Judge is bound by a decision of a Division Bench exercising appellate jur…

Concentrix Services India Private Limited (Formerly Known As Minacs Private Limited, Minacs Limited & Adity Birla Minacs Worldwide Limited ), Mumbai vs. Joint Commissioner of It (OSD)10(2)(2)Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-9(2)(2), Mumbai

ITA 5764/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Oct 2023AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Yogesh TharFor Respondent: Shri Ajit Pal Singh Daia
Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 92(1)Section 92B

…h a view to reduce the incidence of taxation. In fact the Rule 115 of the Income Tax Rules provides that that all the assessee should; convert their foreign exchange assets into Indian Rupees on the last day of the previous year. In CIT vs. R. B. Construction 202 ITR 222 (AP)(FB), it has been held that if rule is not considered, the decision becomes per incuram. In as much as the Appellant has followed the accounting treatment which is in conformity with Accounting Standard 11 issued by the ICAI. Various authorities have held that while determining allowability of an expenditure, accounting standard has a great p…

Concentrix Services India Private Limited (Formerly Known As Minacs Private Limited, Minacs Limited & Adity Birla Minacs Worldwide Limited ), Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-10(2)(2), Mumbai

ITA 5260/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Oct 2023AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Yogesh TharFor Respondent: Shri Ajit Pal Singh Daia
Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 92(1)Section 92B

…h a view to reduce the incidence of taxation. In fact the Rule 115 of the Income Tax Rules provides that that all the assessee should; convert their foreign exchange assets into Indian Rupees on the last day of the previous year. In CIT vs. R. B. Construction 202 ITR 222 (AP)(FB), it has been held that if rule is not considered, the decision becomes per incuram. In as much as the Appellant has followed the accounting treatment which is in conformity with Accounting Standard 11 issued by the ICAI. Various authorities have held that while determining allowability of an expenditure, accounting standard has a great p…