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

Mastek Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Jt.CIT, Rang4, Ahmedabad

ITA 172/AHD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Ms Madhumita Roysl. Ita No(S) Appeal(S) By Asset. Nos Year(S) Appellant Vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. 1188/Ahd/2015 2009-10 M/S Mastek Ltd., D.C.I.T., (Osd)-1,Circle-4, 804/805Ahmedabad House, Opp. C.N. Vidyalaya, Nr. Ambawadi Circle, Ambawadi, Ahmedabad -380 006 Pan:Aaacm9908Q 2. 1852/Ahd/2015 2009-10 A.C.I.T., M/S. Mastek Ltd. Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad 3. It(Tp) 172/Ahd/2016 2010-11 M/S. Mastek Ltd. J.C.I.T., Ahmedabad Range-4, Ahmedabad 4. It(Tp) 514/Ahd/2016 2010-11 A.C.I.T., M/S. Mastek Ltd. Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad Ahmedabad Assessee By : Shri S. N. Soparkar & Parin Shah, A.Rs. Revenue By : Shri Krishna Murari, Cit- D.R.

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar & Parin Shah, A.RsFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Murari, CIT- D.R
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…judicial precedents. We have also noted that in view of the decision a coordinate bench, in the case of JKT Fabrics v. Dy. CIT [2005] 4 SOT 84 (Mum.) and following the Full bench decision of Hon'ble AP High Court in the case of CIT v. BR Constructions [1993] 202 ITR 222/[1994] 73 Taxman 473 (AP), a decision disregarding an earlier binding precedent on the issue is per incurium. Such decisions cannot be basis for sending the matters to special bench since occasion for reference to special bench arises when binding and conflicting judicial precedents from coordinate benches come up for consideration. That was not…

Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Mastek Ltd., Ahmedabad

ITA 1852/AHD/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Ms Madhumita Roysl. Ita No(S) Appeal(S) By Asset. Nos Year(S) Appellant Vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. 1188/Ahd/2015 2009-10 M/S Mastek Ltd., D.C.I.T., (Osd)-1,Circle-4, 804/805Ahmedabad House, Opp. C.N. Vidyalaya, Nr. Ambawadi Circle, Ambawadi, Ahmedabad -380 006 Pan:Aaacm9908Q 2. 1852/Ahd/2015 2009-10 A.C.I.T., M/S. Mastek Ltd. Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad 3. It(Tp) 172/Ahd/2016 2010-11 M/S. Mastek Ltd. J.C.I.T., Ahmedabad Range-4, Ahmedabad 4. It(Tp) 514/Ahd/2016 2010-11 A.C.I.T., M/S. Mastek Ltd. Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad Ahmedabad Assessee By : Shri S. N. Soparkar & Parin Shah, A.Rs. Revenue By : Shri Krishna Murari, Cit- D.R.

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar & Parin Shah, A.RsFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Murari, CIT- D.R
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…judicial precedents. We have also noted that in view of the decision a coordinate bench, in the case of JKT Fabrics v. Dy. CIT [2005] 4 SOT 84 (Mum.) and following the Full bench decision of Hon'ble AP High Court in the case of CIT v. BR Constructions [1993] 202 ITR 222/[1994] 73 Taxman 473 (AP), a decision disregarding an earlier binding precedent on the issue is per incurium. Such decisions cannot be basis for sending the matters to special bench since occasion for reference to special bench arises when binding and conflicting judicial precedents from coordinate benches come up for consideration. That was not…

Mastek Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, (OSD) - 1, Circle-4, Ahmedabad

ITA 1188/AHD/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Ms Madhumita Roysl. Ita No(S) Appeal(S) By Asset. Nos Year(S) Appellant Vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. 1188/Ahd/2015 2009-10 M/S Mastek Ltd., D.C.I.T., (Osd)-1,Circle-4, 804/805Ahmedabad House, Opp. C.N. Vidyalaya, Nr. Ambawadi Circle, Ambawadi, Ahmedabad -380 006 Pan:Aaacm9908Q 2. 1852/Ahd/2015 2009-10 A.C.I.T., M/S. Mastek Ltd. Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad 3. It(Tp) 172/Ahd/2016 2010-11 M/S. Mastek Ltd. J.C.I.T., Ahmedabad Range-4, Ahmedabad 4. It(Tp) 514/Ahd/2016 2010-11 A.C.I.T., M/S. Mastek Ltd. Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad Ahmedabad Assessee By : Shri S. N. Soparkar & Parin Shah, A.Rs. Revenue By : Shri Krishna Murari, Cit- D.R.

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar & Parin Shah, A.RsFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Murari, CIT- D.R
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…judicial precedents. We have also noted that in view of the decision a coordinate bench, in the case of JKT Fabrics v. Dy. CIT [2005] 4 SOT 84 (Mum.) and following the Full bench decision of Hon'ble AP High Court in the case of CIT v. BR Constructions [1993] 202 ITR 222/[1994] 73 Taxman 473 (AP), a decision disregarding an earlier binding precedent on the issue is per incurium. Such decisions cannot be basis for sending the matters to special bench since occasion for reference to special bench arises when binding and conflicting judicial precedents from coordinate benches come up for consideration. That was not…

The ACIT, Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad vs. Mundra International Container Terminal Pvt. Ltd., Kutch

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2171/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Jun 2019AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Alok Singh, CIT-D.R
Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 32

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “B” BENCH Before: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Judicial Member And Shri Amarjit Singh, Accountant Member ITA Nos. 1117, 2171 & 2172 /Ahd/2017 Assessment Year 2011-12 to 2013-14 The ACIT, Mundra International Circle-2(1)(2), Container Terminal Pvt. Ahmedabad Vs Ltd. New Mundra Port, (Appellant) Navinal Island, Post Box No. 8, Mundra, Kutch PAN: AADCA0917C (Respondent) Revenue by: Shri Alok Singh, CIT-D.R. Assessee by: Shri S.N. Soparkar, A.R. Date of hearing : 18-06-2019 Date of pronouncement : 28-06-2019 आदेश/ORDER PER : AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:- All the…

The ACIT, Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Mundra International Container Terminal Pvt. Ltd., Kutch

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1117/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Jun 2019AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Alok Singh, CIT-D.R
Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 32

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “B” BENCH Before: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Judicial Member And Shri Amarjit Singh, Accountant Member ITA Nos. 1117, 2171 & 2172 /Ahd/2017 Assessment Year 2011-12 to 2013-14 The ACIT, Mundra International Circle-2(1)(2), Container Terminal Pvt. Ahmedabad Vs Ltd. New Mundra Port, (Appellant) Navinal Island, Post Box No. 8, Mundra, Kutch PAN: AADCA0917C (Respondent) Revenue by: Shri Alok Singh, CIT-D.R. Assessee by: Shri S.N. Soparkar, A.R. Date of hearing : 18-06-2019 Date of pronouncement : 28-06-2019 आदेश/ORDER PER : AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:- All the…

ACIT, Circle-33, Kolkata vs. Central Bank of India Employees Cooperative Society Limited, Kolkata

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 1868/KOL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Nov 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri P.M.Jagtap, Vice- & Shri S.S.Godaraassessment Year:1014-15

Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

…ated 01.03.2018 (supra) is not very well founded since going against the hon'ble jurisdictional subsequent judgment on the very issue. We therefore treat learned co-ordinate bench’s earlier order to be per inquriam as per the CIT vs. B.R. Constructions (1993) 202 ITR 222 (AP)(F.B) since not taking into consideration the law settled by hon'ble jurisdictional high court. The Revenue therefore succeeds in its sole substantive ground in principle. 9. This leaves us with the equally significant aspect of computation of the impugned sec. 80P(2)(a)(i) deduction. There is hardly any dispute about the assessee having der…

Asst CIT Cir 6(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Ask Investment Managers P.Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical

ITA 534/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year 2012-13 Acit M/S Ask Investment Circle-6(1)(2), Managers Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ R. No.536, 5Th Floor, 1St Floor Bandbox House, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Dr. Ab Road, Worli, M. K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400030 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aafca2302P Shri Nitin Waghmode-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri J.D. Mistri Sr. Advocate

Section 115JSection 14A

…udgment 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 ITA. No.534/Mum/2017 39 M/s Ask Inves…

Tti Team Telecom International Ltd, Mumbai vs. ADIT (It) 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed in terms of our directions as indicated above

ITA 2763/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tti Team Telecom Adit (It)-2(2) International Ltd. बनाम/ R.No.116, 1St Fl. C/O. Sudit K.Parekh & Co. Scindia House, Vs. Ballard House, 2Nd Floor, Ballard Pier, Adi Marzban Path, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-38 Fort, Mumbai-400001 (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aacct5300M Appellant By Shri Vijay Mehta & Anuj Kisnadwala (Ar) Revenue By Shri Jasbir S. Chauhan (Cit-Dr) सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing: 01/11/2016 30/11/2016 आदेश क" तार"ख /Date Of Order:

Section 9(1)(vi)

…r a process, but the view so expressed, being contrary to earlier decisions of the other Co-ordinate Benches and in accordance with the law laid down by Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT vs. B.R. Constructions (1993) 113 CTR (AP) 1 : (1993) 202 ITR 222 (AP) does not constitute a binding judicial precedent. In our considered view, even a Co-ordinate Bench decision, which is admittedly contrary to earlier precedents on that issue from other Co-ordinate Benches, does not bind the subsequent Co-ordinate Benches. We have all the respect and admiration for the Co-ordinate Bench decision, but, in our…

DCIT Cir 3(3), Mumbai vs. Siro Clinpharm P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2876/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2016AY 2009-10
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80ISection 92CSection 92C(2)Section 92C(3)

…judicial precedents. We have also noted that in view of the decision a coordinate bench, in the case of JKT Fabrics v. Dy. CIT [2005] 4 SOT 84 (Mum.) and following the Full bench decision of Hon'ble AP High Court in the case of CIT v. BR Constructions [1993] 202 ITR 222/[1994] 73 Taxman 473 (AP), a decision disregarding an earlier binding precedent on the issue is per incurium. Such decisions cannot be basis for sending the matters to special bench since occasion for reference to special bench arises when binding and conflicting judicial precedents from coordinate benches come up for consideration. That was not…

Siro Clinpharm P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 3(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2618/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2016AY 2009-10
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80ISection 92CSection 92C(2)Section 92C(3)

…judicial precedents. We have also noted that in view of the decision a coordinate bench, in the case of JKT Fabrics v. Dy. CIT [2005] 4 SOT 84 (Mum.) and following the Full bench decision of Hon'ble AP High Court in the case of CIT v. BR Constructions [1993] 202 ITR 222/[1994] 73 Taxman 473 (AP), a decision disregarding an earlier binding precedent on the issue is per incurium. Such decisions cannot be basis for sending the matters to special bench since occasion for reference to special bench arises when binding and conflicting judicial precedents from coordinate benches come up for consideration. That was not…