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

Guala Closures (India) Pvt. Ltd., Panaji vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Panaji., Select City

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 205/PAN/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji13 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Ketan VedFor Respondent: Shri P.S. Shivshankar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144(3)Section 144CSection 253Section 263Section 4

…t in the assessee’s contentions based on learned coordinate bench”s order. The first and foremost question as to whether a coordinate bench’s order is to be treated as a binding precedent in all circumstances or not, case law CIT vs. B.R. Constructions [1993] 202 ITR 333 (AP) holds that a judicial decision ceases to be a binding precedent if it has not proceeded on correct appreciation of law or facts as under : “37. The effect of binding precedents in India is that the decisions of the Supreme Court are binding on all the subordinate courts. Indeed, article 141 of the Constitution embodies the rule of precedent…

Amaravati, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1486/HYD/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Sept 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Sri K.C. Devdas, C.AFor Respondent: Sri Shakeer Ahmed, Sr. A.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…e fact also remains that such an estimation depends on facts of each and every case than involving any legal interpretation which could be treated as a valid precedent as per the hon'ble jurisdictional high court’s decision in CIT Vs. B.R.Constructions (1993) 202 ITR 222 (AP). Faced with this situation, we deem it appropriate in larger interest of justice that the impugned bogus purchases in all these three year(s) deserve to be restricted to disallowance @8% only in the given facts and circumstances with a rider that the same shall not be taken as a precedent in any other case. Necessary computation shall follo…

Amaravati, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1485/HYD/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Sept 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Sri K.C. Devdas, C.AFor Respondent: Sri Shakeer Ahmed, Sr. A.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…e fact also remains that such an estimation depends on facts of each and every case than involving any legal interpretation which could be treated as a valid precedent as per the hon'ble jurisdictional high court’s decision in CIT Vs. B.R.Constructions (1993) 202 ITR 222 (AP). Faced with this situation, we deem it appropriate in larger interest of justice that the impugned bogus purchases in all these three year(s) deserve to be restricted to disallowance @8% only in the given facts and circumstances with a rider that the same shall not be taken as a precedent in any other case. Necessary computation shall follo…

Amaravati, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1484/HYD/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Sept 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Sri K.C. Devdas, C.AFor Respondent: Sri Shakeer Ahmed, Sr. A.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…e fact also remains that such an estimation depends on facts of each and every case than involving any legal interpretation which could be treated as a valid precedent as per the hon'ble jurisdictional high court’s decision in CIT Vs. B.R.Constructions (1993) 202 ITR 222 (AP). Faced with this situation, we deem it appropriate in larger interest of justice that the impugned bogus purchases in all these three year(s) deserve to be restricted to disallowance @8% only in the given facts and circumstances with a rider that the same shall not be taken as a precedent in any other case. Necessary computation shall follo…

Amaravati, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1483/HYD/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Sept 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Sri K.C. Devdas, C.AFor Respondent: Sri Shakeer Ahmed, Sr. A.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…e fact also remains that such an estimation depends on facts of each and every case than involving any legal interpretation which could be treated as a valid precedent as per the hon'ble jurisdictional high court’s decision in CIT Vs. B.R.Constructions (1993) 202 ITR 222 (AP). Faced with this situation, we deem it appropriate in larger interest of justice that the impugned bogus purchases in all these three year(s) deserve to be restricted to disallowance @8% only in the given facts and circumstances with a rider that the same shall not be taken as a precedent in any other case. Necessary computation shall follo…

Shree Cement Limited, Beawar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Ajmer

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 152/JPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT
Section 115JSection 250Section 32(1)(ii)Section 80Section 80I

…o ITO –vs.- Modern International (ITA No. 1253/Kol/2011) dated 17-02-2012. Shree Cement Limited, Beawar. While rendering the above decisions, Hon’ble Tribunals followed the decision of Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in CIT -vs.- B.R. Constructions (1993) 202 ITR 222 (FB). Rockline Developers P. Ltd. –vs- ITO (ITA No 5125/Mum/2016 dtd 06- 07- 2018) In the said case, the assessee claimed deduction u/s 80-IB for the purpose of calculation of book profit u/s 115JB before CIT(A) through additional ground which CIT(A) rejected. Tribunal placing reliance on Sankhla Polymers P Ltd (supra) and Ganesh Housing Corpor…

Amrut Rajendrakumar Bora, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5, Pune

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 563/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Pune04 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S. PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 139(9)Section 143(1)Section 246ASection 246A(1)(a)Section 44A

…ns only. 8. So far as the assessee’s reliance on learned coordinate bench foregoing decision (supra) is concerned, we hold the same to be per inquirium only since not adopting stricter interpretation in above terms. Case law CIT vs. B.R. Constructions [1993] 202 ITR 333 (AP) holds that a judicial decision ceases to be a binding precedent in such a factual backdrop. We accordingly uphold the CIT(A)'s action rejecting the assessee’s lower appeal against sec.139(9) order as not maintainable u/sec.246A of the Act. Rejected accordingly. 9. We make it clear before parting that it shall be very much open for the asses…

M/S Suyojit Infrastructure, Nashik vs. ITO Ward 2(1), Nashik

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

ITA 97/PUN/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80Section 80I

…learned coordinate bench’s order is concerned, we nowhere see any specific detailed discussion regarding sec.80IA(4)(i)(a) qua the clinching “ownership” aspect which has to be treated as a mandatory condition. We wish to quote CIT vs. BR Constructions [1993] 202 ITR 222 (AP) holding that such an adjudication not considering the corresponding statutory provision is not a binding precedent as under : “37. 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. All the subordinate cou…

M/S Suyojit Infrastructure, Nashik vs. ITO Ward 2(1), Nashik

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

ITA 92/PUN/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80Section 80I

…learned coordinate bench’s order is concerned, we nowhere see any specific detailed discussion regarding sec.80IA(4)(i)(a) qua the clinching “ownership” aspect which has to be treated as a mandatory condition. We wish to quote CIT vs. BR Constructions [1993] 202 ITR 222 (AP) holding that such an adjudication not considering the corresponding statutory provision is not a binding precedent as under : “37. 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. All the subordinate cou…

Shinhan Bank, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the cross-objection is dismissed

ITA 2229/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Nov 2022AY 2012-13
Section 143(3)

…h cannot be, in deserving cases, deviated from. While on this aspect of the matter, it is also useful to bear in mind the following observations made in a Full Bench decision of Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court, in the case of CIT Vs BR Constructions [(1993) 202 ITR 222 (AP-FB)]: 29. It may be noticed that precedent ceases to be a binding precedent— ITA Nos. 2227 & 2229/Mum/2017and 7345 & 7347/Mum/2018 CO Nos.: 17 & 18/Mum/ 2021; Assessment years: 2012-13 to 2015-16 Page 7 of 33 (i) if it is reversed or overruled by a higher court, (ii) when it is affirmed or reversed on a different ground, (iii) when it is in…

Shinhan Bank, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the cross-objection is dismissed

ITA 2227/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Nov 2022AY 2013-14
Section 143(3)

…h cannot be, in deserving cases, deviated from. While on this aspect of the matter, it is also useful to bear in mind the following observations made in a Full Bench decision of Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court, in the case of CIT Vs BR Constructions [(1993) 202 ITR 222 (AP-FB)]: 29. It may be noticed that precedent ceases to be a binding precedent— ITA Nos. 2227 & 2229/Mum/2017and 7345 & 7347/Mum/2018 CO Nos.: 17 & 18/Mum/ 2021; Assessment years: 2012-13 to 2015-16 Page 7 of 33 (i) if it is reversed or overruled by a higher court, (ii) when it is affirmed or reversed on a different ground, (iii) when it is in…

Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT RG 2(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 7287/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri H.P. MahajaniFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.7287/Mum./2018 (Assessment Year : 2014–15) Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. Corporate Taxation, P.K. Kurne Chowk ……………. Appellant Worli, Mumbai 400 018 PAN – AAACM3025E v/s Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax …………….Respondent Central Circle–2(2)(2), Mumbai Assessee by : Shri H.P. Mahajani Revenue by : Smt. Mahita Nair Date of Hearing – 16/09/2022 Date of Order – 07/11/2022 O R D E R PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M. The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challe…

Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 12(1), Pune vs. M/S. Yash Associates, Pune

ITA 159/PUN/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.159/Pun/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 The Income Tax Officer, M/S.Yash Associates, 401, 4Th Floor, Shreepal Ward-12(1), Pune. Vs . Chambers, 481/C, Shanivar Peth, Pune – 411030. Pan: Aaafy 6149 E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Cross Objection No.01/Pun/2022 (Arising Out Of Ita No.159/Pun/2018) िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 The Income Tax Officer, M/S.Yash Associates, 401, 4Th Floor, Shreepal Ward-12(1), Pune. Vs. Chambers, 481/C, Shanivar Peth, Pune – 411030. Pan: Aaafy 6149 E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Rajiv Thakkar – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 11/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 05/08/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: This Revenue’S Appeal Ita No.159/Pun/218 With Assessee’S Cross Objection Co No.01/Pun/2022 For The A.Y. 2014-15, Arise Against The Cit(A)-8, Pune’S Order Dated 17.10.2017 Passed In Case No.Pn/Cit(A)-8/Acit Cir-12/293/2017-18/284, In Proceedings Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. Heard Both The Parties. Case Files Perused.

Section 143(3)Section 80I

…ting the deduction provision itself. All these assessee’s argument fail to evoke our concurrence. So far as it’s reliance on learned co-ordinate bench in concerned, we hold that the same hardly forms a binding precedent as per CIT Vs. B R Constructions [1993] 202 ITR 333 (AP)(FB) holding that any decision not based on correct appreciation of facts and law does not bind a co-ordinate bench. The assessee’s last argument in that sec 115 JC; if made applicable on its project entitled for sec 80IB(10) deduction which had been approved & completed much earlier, hardly carried any weight in light of M/s.Sankara Polymers…

Shinhan Bank, Mumbai vs. DDIT (It) RG 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 6994/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2022AY 2008-09
Section 143(3)Section 44C

…h cannot be, in deserving cases, deviated from. While on this aspect of the matter, it is also useful to bear in mind the following observations made in a Full Bench decision of Hon‘ble Andhra Pradesh High Court, in the case of CIT Vs BR Constructions [(1993) 202 ITR 222 (AP-FB)]: 29. It may be noticed that precedent ceases to be a binding precedent— (i) if it is reversed or overruled by a higher court, (ii) when it is affirmed or reversed on a different ground, (iii) when it is inconsistent with the earlier decisions of the same rank, (iv) when it is sub silentio, and (v) when it is rendered per incuriam, 30. In…

Shinhan Bank, Mumbai vs. DDIT (It) RG 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 6993/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2022AY 2007-08
Section 143(3)Section 90

…h cannot be, in deserving cases, deviated from. While on this aspect of the matter, it is also useful to bear in mind the following observations made in a Full Bench decision of Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court, in the case of CIT Vs BR Constructions [(1993) 202 ITR 222 (AP-FB)]: 29. It may be noticed that precedent ceases to be a binding precedent— (i) if it is reversed or overruled by a higher court, (ii) when it is affirmed or reversed on a different ground, (iii) when it is inconsistent with the earlier decisions of the same rank, (iv) when it is sub silentio, and (v) when it is rendered per incuriam, 30. I…

The Prajatantra Prachar Samity, Cuttack vs. ACIT, Circle-2(1), Cuttack

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee stand allowed

ITA 80/CTK/2009[1993-94]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack09 May 2022AY 1993-94

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Hota/Shri S.K,.AgarqwalFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty
Section 27

…ed on by the learned AR is per incurium as it has been passed ignoring the provision of the statute in the form of s. 292B of Income Tax Act. A decision treated per incurium is not a binding precedent and is not to be followed. CIT V. B. R. Constructions (AP) 202 ITR 222. 3. The order relied on by the learned AR is per incurium also because it is passed ignoring the binding precedent in the form of the decision in the case of Shanmugaveal Nadar 263 ITR 658 (SC) holding that a rejection of SLP through a non-speaking order is not a binding precedent and following the decision in the case of SSA's Emerald Meadows (2…

The Prajatantra Prachar Samity, Cuttack vs. ACIT, Circle-2(1), Cuttack

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee stand allowed

ITA 79/CTK/2009[1989-90]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack09 May 2022AY 1989-90

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Hota/Shri S.K,.AgarqwalFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty
Section 27

…ed on by the learned AR is per incurium as it has been passed ignoring the provision of the statute in the form of s. 292B of Income Tax Act. A decision treated per incurium is not a binding precedent and is not to be followed. CIT V. B. R. Constructions (AP) 202 ITR 222. 3. The order relied on by the learned AR is per incurium also because it is passed ignoring the binding precedent in the form of the decision in the case of Shanmugaveal Nadar 263 ITR 658 (SC) holding that a rejection of SLP through a non-speaking order is not a binding precedent and following the decision in the case of SSA's Emerald Meadows (2…

The Prajatantra Prachar Samity, Cuttack vs. ACIT, Circle-2(1), Cuttack

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee stand allowed

ITA 78/CTK/2009[1985-86]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack09 May 2022AY 1985-86

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Hota/Shri S.K,.AgarqwalFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty
Section 27

…ed on by the learned AR is per incurium as it has been passed ignoring the provision of the statute in the form of s. 292B of Income Tax Act. A decision treated per incurium is not a binding precedent and is not to be followed. CIT V. B. R. Constructions (AP) 202 ITR 222. 3. The order relied on by the learned AR is per incurium also because it is passed ignoring the binding precedent in the form of the decision in the case of Shanmugaveal Nadar 263 ITR 658 (SC) holding that a rejection of SLP through a non-speaking order is not a binding precedent and following the decision in the case of SSA's Emerald Meadows (2…

Caterpillar Global Mining Europe Gmbh, Peddapalli vs. Assistant of Income Tax -1, International Taxation, Hyderabad

Appeals are partly allowed

ITA 116/HYD/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Mar 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri L. P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Korde, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar (D.R.)
Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD ‘ A ’ BENCH, HYDERABAD. BEFORE SHRI S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI L. P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. & Appellant Respondent Asst. Year 610/Hyd/2014 M/s. Caterpillar Global Dy. Director of 2010-11 Mining Europe GMBH- Income Tax, India Project Office, International Karimnagar. Taxation-1, PAN AADCB4524A Hyderabad. 483/Hyd/2015 Dy. Commissioner of 2011-12 -do- Income Tax-1, International Taxation, Hyderabad. 2072/Hyd/2017 M/s. Caterpillar Global 2014-15 Mining Europe GMBH- India Project Office, -do- Godavarikhani, Peddapalli, Telangana. PAN AADCB4524A 1127/…

Caterpillar Global Mining Europe Gmbh, Peddapalli vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, (International Taxation)-1, Hyderabad

Appeals are partly allowed

ITA 1127/HYD/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Mar 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri L. P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Korde, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar (D.R.)
Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD ‘ A ’ BENCH, HYDERABAD. BEFORE SHRI S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI L. P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. & Appellant Respondent Asst. Year 610/Hyd/2014 M/s. Caterpillar Global Dy. Director of 2010-11 Mining Europe GMBH- Income Tax, India Project Office, International Karimnagar. Taxation-1, PAN AADCB4524A Hyderabad. 483/Hyd/2015 Dy. Commissioner of 2011-12 -do- Income Tax-1, International Taxation, Hyderabad. 2072/Hyd/2017 M/s. Caterpillar Global 2014-15 Mining Europe GMBH- India Project Office, -do- Godavarikhani, Peddapalli, Telangana. PAN AADCB4524A 1127/…