What is CIT v. Excel Industries Ltd. authority for?

When an income or expenditure is revenue neutral across different assessment years, where any benefit derived is offset by a corresponding liability or reversal, no additional tax liability arises, particularly concerning income recognition under the mercantile system of accounting.

How many judgments cite CIT v. Excel Industries Ltd.?

935 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Excel Industries Ltd. (358 ITR 295), spanning 2011 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Excel Industries Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 37(1), Section 147, Section 14A, Section 132, Section 153A.

CIT v. Excel Industries Ltd. (358 ITR 295)

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1 vs. Bmo Advisors Pvt. Ltd

ITA/82/2022HC Delhi11 Apr 2022

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SHARMA

Section 36(1)(ii)Section 40ASection 40A(2)(b)

…it has been held that a departure from a finding during the past years would result in a contradictory finding. (See: Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sridev Enterprises (1991) 192 ITR 165). In fact, in Commissioner of Income Tax vs Excel Industries Ltd (2014) 13 SCC 457, the Court had observed that it was not appropriate to This is a digitally signed Judgement. NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/001344 ITA No.82/2022 Page 3 of 6 allow reconsideration of an issue for a subsequent assessment year if the same “fundamental aspect” permeates in different assessment years. 7. In any event, the interpretation of Section 36…

Rakesh Vaid, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 62(2), New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeal, ITA no

ITA 7821/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year: 2010-11]

Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…25 10,93,695 147/143(3) 116-120 (8.25%) (21.12.2018) 3 2012-13 11330088 9,35,865 8.26 9,35,865 147/143(3) 130-132 (8.26%) (19.12.2019) 20 Rakesh Vaid Vs. ITO 6.1. Reliance in support of the principle of consistency is placed on the following judgments: i) 358 ITR 295 (SC) CIT vs. Excel Industries Ltd. “29. In Radhasoami Satsang Saomi Bagh v. Commissioner of Income Tax, [1992] 193 ITR 321 (SC) this Court did not think it appropriate to allow the reconsideration of an issue for a subsequent assessment year if the same "fundamental aspect" permeates in different assessment years. In arriving at this conclusion,…

George Maijo Industries (P) Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, CC-II (1), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2959/CHNY/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Apr 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Vikram VijayaraghavanFor Respondent: Shri G. Johnson, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘डी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी महावीर "संह, उपा"य" एवं "ी मनोज कुमार अ"वाल, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENTAND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.: 2958 & 2959/CHNY/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years:2015-16 & 2016-17 George Maijo Industries (P) Ltd., The ACIT, 2-b, Apex Plaza, 5, v. Corporate Circle -II(1), Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 034. PAN: AACCG 6145R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant by : Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate…

George Maijo Industries (P) Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, CC-II (1), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2958/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Vikram VijayaraghavanFor Respondent: Shri G. Johnson, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘डी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी महावीर "संह, उपा"य" एवं "ी मनोज कुमार अ"वाल, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENTAND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.: 2958 & 2959/CHNY/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years:2015-16 & 2016-17 George Maijo Industries (P) Ltd., The ACIT, 2-b, Apex Plaza, 5, v. Corporate Circle -II(1), Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 034. PAN: AACCG 6145R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant by : Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate…

M/S. Samarath Realites, Ahmedabad vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed as indicated above

ITA 1144/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Divatia, A.RFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Shukla, Sr. D.R

Section 250

…hod followed consistently cannot be rejected. The year under appeal is last year of the project and in earlier two years the book result was accepted by Department so that following the principle of consistency as held in the case of the Excel Industries Ltd. 358 ITR 295, the books of accounts of the assessee cannot be rejected. The land rate at the time of booking is the basis of bifurcation. The cost of land forms part of the sale deed and the cost of land so allocated goes to the land owner. The calculation made by Assessing Officer would result in double taxation since the construction cost of Rs. 1,27,11,726…

ACIT Cirrcle-3 (3)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Skycape Developers Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed being devoid of any merit

ITA 6776/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 6776/मुं/2019("न. व .2014-15) Acit,Circle -3(3), Room No.628, 6Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 005 ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. M/S. Skyscape Developers Pvt.Ltd. Shapoorji Pllonji Centre, 41/44, Minoo Desai Marg, Colaba, Mumbai – 400 005 Pan: Aajcs- 8938-H ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Vinod Tanwani ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Dr. K.Shivram, Sr. Advocate सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 16/12/2021 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 10/03/2022

For Appellant: Shri Vinod TanwaniFor Respondent: Dr. K.Shivram, Sr. Advocate

…4. Thus, the principle of consistency demand that the same should be allowed in assessment year 2014-15, as well. In support of his contention the ld.Counsel 5 for the assessee placed reliance on the decision rendered in the case of CIT vs. Excel Industries 358 ITR 295(SC). 4. On the other hand, Shri Vinod Tanwani representing the Department vehemently supported the assessment order. The ld.Departmental Representative submitted that assessee has claimed interest expenditure, administrative expenses and depreciation in respect of Block –C, which was allegedly complete in all respect , but not actually “put to u…

M/S Credence Developers, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO 28(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by assessee is partly allowed

ITA 414/MUM/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 414/मुं/2020 ("न.व 2010-11) M/S. Credence Developers, Shop No.11, Shree Ganesh Homes, Plot No.12, Sector-3, Ghansoli, Navi Mumbai 400 701 Pan: Aadfc-9121-B ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer – 28(1)(3), Room No.327, Tower No.6, Vashi Railway Station, 3Rd Floor, Vashi, Navi Mumbai 400 703 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : S/Shri Rajiv Khandelwal & Aakash Kumar ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri R.A. Dhyani सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 26/11/2021 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 21/02/2022

For Appellant: S/Shri Rajiv Khandelwal and Aakash KumarFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani

Section 143(1)

…ut making his own enquiry and examining the documents furnished by the assessee during the course of re-assessment proceedings. The ld. Authorized Representative in support of his submissions placed reliance on the following decisions: (1) Excel Industries , 358 ITR 295 (2) Mundra Securities vs. ITO in ITA No.1944/Mum/2019 for A.Y. 2010-11 decided on 08/12/2020. 3. On the other hand, Shri R.A. Dhyani representing the Department vehemently defended the assessment order. The ld. Departmental Representative submitted that this appeal can be restored back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. 4. Submissio…

Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) Delhi vs. Hamdard National Foundation (India)

ITA/144/2021HC Delhi16 Feb 2022

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA

Section 11Section 13(2)(b)Section 13(3)

…rather than spend the taxpayers‟ money pursuing the litigation for the sake of it and should abide by the principle of consistency. In support, he places reliance on the following judgments: i. Commissioner of Income Tax v. Excel Industries Ltd., (2014) 13 SCC 459; ii. M/s Radhasoami Satsang, Saomi Bagh, Agra v. Commissioner of Income Tax, (1992) 1 SCC 659; and iii. Berger Paints India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Calcutta, (2004) 12 SCC 42. 17. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties. This is a digitally signed Judgement. NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/…

Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) Delhi vs. Hamdrd National Foundation (India)

ITA/115/2021HC Delhi16 Feb 2022

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA

Section 11Section 13(2)(b)Section 13(3)

…rather than spend the taxpayers‟ money pursuing the litigation for the sake of it and should abide by the principle of consistency. In support, he places reliance on the following judgments: i. Commissioner of Income Tax v. Excel Industries Ltd., (2014) 13 SCC 459; ii. M/s Radhasoami Satsang, Saomi Bagh, Agra v. Commissioner of Income Tax, (1992) 1 SCC 659; and iii. Berger Paints India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Calcutta, (2004) 12 SCC 42. 17. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties. This is a digitally signed Judgement. NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/…

ACIT -2(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Shri Jayant Dattatray Mhaiskar, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 510/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Feb 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Rahul Chaudhary (Jm)

Section 24Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

…issue that has attained finality in earlier assessment years and the fundamental aspect permeats in different years. It is duly supported by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of Radha Swami Sastry vs CIT 193 ITR 321 and CIT vs Excel Industries 358 ITR 295. 15. Moreover, following case laws referred before ld.CIT(A) are germane and support the case of the assessee on merits i).Hon’ble Supreme court decision in S.A. Builders vs CIT 288 ITR 1 has interpreted that the expression "for the purpose of business" includes expenditure voluntarily incurred for commercial expediency and it is immaterial if a…