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 295Supreme Court of India2013#49 most cited

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.

935

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,154 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Excel Industries Ltd. · Excel Industries Ltd SC 2013 · Revenue Neutral principle · mercantile system of accounting · right to receive income · taxability of revenue neutral transactions · Section 147 Income Tax Act · reassessment · Section 148 Income Tax Act · profits and gains of business or profession · no tax liability revenue neutral · income accrual reversal

Also reported as

38 Taxmann.com 100219 Taxmann 379

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 147 Section 14A Section 132 Section 153A Section 1961 Section 148

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

right to receive mercantile system of accounting rule of consistency section 35 profits and gains of business or profession revenue expenditure liable to tax section 80i section 37(1)section 28 section 32 capital expenditure

Judgments citing CIT v. Excel Industries Ltd.

M/S Future First Info Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5530/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Nov 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Dr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Vs Future First Info Services Pvt. Acit Ltd. Circle-9(2) 303, Mansarover Building New Delhi 90, Nehru Place, New Delhi Aaacf8545J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Rahul Yadav & Suyansh Sinha, Advs Respondent By Sh. Surendar Pal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 18.08.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 16.11.2021

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 234BSection 253(1)

…is comparable ought to have 11 been retained. Detailed submissions were filed by the assessee before lower authorities. The Ld. AR relied upon the following decisions: * Radhasoami Saisang vs. CIT (1992) 193 1TR 321 (SC) * CIT vs. Excel Industries Ltd. (2013) 358 ITR 295 (SC) 9.5 The Ld. DR relied upon the assessment order and the order of the CIT(A). 9.6 We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. It is pertinent to note that as we have observed hereinabove in respect of Ground No. 4, the assessee is not a high-end KPO. Jindal Intellicom Ltd. passes all the filters…

DCIT Central Circle-2, Jaipur, Central Circle-2 vs. M/S. Vikas Jewellers 331-332 Govindram Building Mi Road, Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 789/JPR/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Nov 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 789/Jp/2019 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Deputy Commissioner Of Cuke M/S Vikas Jewellers, Vs. Income Tax, 331-332, Govindram Building, Central Circle-2, Mi Road, Jaipur. Jaipur. Pan No.: Aakfv 6383 P Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta (Pcit-Dr) Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri S.R. Sharma, (Ca) & Shri Rajnikant Bhatra (Ca) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 16/09/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 01/11/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is The Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-4, Jaipur Dated 27/03/2019 For The A.Y. 2016-17 Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Raised By The Revenue. “1. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Right In Deleting Of Rs. 2,12,54,055/- On Account Of Excess Stock Found During The Search Without Appreciating The Facts That One Of The Partner Of The Firm Categorically Admitted The Excess Stock Of Rs. 5,64,20,450/- In The Statements Recorded During The Search U/S 132(4) Of The It Act.

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma, (CA) &For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (PCIT-DR) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

…somehow made, the same is to be allowed to the assessee in the next year as opening stock which will reduce the profits of next year. This exercise is essentially revenue neutral between two years. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Excel India, 358 ITR 295 has held that addition in such revenue neutral exercise should not be made by the Department. Thus, on both the counts, there is no justification in retaining the addition which is deleted." It is, therefore, prayed that order of Ld. CIT(A) may kindly be upheld and addition of Rs.2,12,54,055/- made in the income of appellant deserves to be delet…

Axis Bank Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1 Now Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 311/AHD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Oct 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedsl. Ita No(S) Asset. Appeal(S) By No(S) Year(S) Appellant Vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. 311/Ahd/2016 2010-11 Axis Bank Limited, D.C.I.T., “Trishul”, 3Rd Floor, Circle-1(1)(1) Opp. Samtheshwar Ahmedabad. Mahadev Near Law Garden, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad-380006. Pan: Aaacu2414K 2. 2176/Ahd/2016 2011-12 Axis Bank Limited, D.C.I.T., “Trishul”, 3Rd Floor, Circle-1(1)(1) Opp. Samtheshwar Ahmedabad. Mahadev Near Law Garden, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad-380006. Pan: Aaacu2414K 3. 2173/Ahd/2016 2011-12 D.C.I.T., Axis Bank Limited, Circle-1(1)(1) Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad. Pan: Aaacu2414K 4. 165/Ahd/2017 2012-13 Axis Bank Limited, D.C.I.T., Ahmedabad. Circle-1(1)(1) Ahmedabad. Pan: Aaacu2414K 5. 287/Ahd/2017 2012-13 D.C.I.T., Axis Bank Limited, Circle-1(1)(1) Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad. Pan: Aaacu2414K 6-7 520 & 2013-14 Axis Bank Limited, D.C.I.T., 521/Ahd/2018 & Ahmedabad. Circle-1(1)(1) 2014-15 Ahmedabad. Pan: Aaacu2414K 8-9 604 & 605/ 2013-14 D.C.I.T., Axis Bank Limited, Ahd/2018 & Circle-1(1)(1) Ahmedabad. 2014-15 Ahmedabad. Pan: Aaacu2414K

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate with Smt. Urvashi Shodhan, and Shri Parin Shah,For Respondent: Shri Anshu Prakash, CIT.DR

Section 14A

…there are no specific provisions eitherway in income tax. (v) Such charge of gain on securitization amortized is only timing difference based addition, tax-neutralized over the years [Nagri Mills 33 ITR 681 (Bom)] and also as per the ratio of Excel Industries 358 ITR 295 (SC] where the Hon. SC has directed the AO to take pragmatic view rather than pendatic view. 2.3 Without prejudice to above it is submitted that the AO be directed to allow reduction of Rs. 2.54 crores recognized as income during the previous year which was disallowed and taxed as accrual of income last year, resulting into double taxation of the…

DCIT, Circle-16(2), New Delhi vs. Maxworth Infrasqwtructrure P.Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 202/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Oct 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri O.P. Kant[Through Video Conferencing] Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 143(3)

…is declaring revenue after execution of the sale deed and as such, the whole exercise is revenue neutral. In this regard, the appellant placed reliance on several judicial decisions including the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Excel Industries Ltd. 358 ITR 295. The appellant stated .that the accounting method followed by it was supported by several judicial decisions, and also the opinion given by the expert advisory committee of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India and the guidance note issued by the Institute on accounting for real estate transactions.” 8. Further, following the decisions…

Paramount Communication Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 19(2), New Delhi

Accordingly, ground no.3 raised by the assessee is allowed and additional ground being infructuous is dismissed

ITA 6141/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Oct 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri A.T. Panda, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anil Gandhi, Senior DR

Section 143Section 37Section 43A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘F’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.6141/Del./2017 (Assessment Year : 2014-15) M/s. Paramount Communications Ltd., vs. DCIT, Circle 19 (2), C-125, Paramount House, New Delhi. Naraina Indl. Area Phase I, New Delhi – 110 028. (PAN : AAACP0969Q) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri A.T. Panda, Advocate REVENUE BY : Shri Anil Gandhi, Senior DR Date of Hearing : 11.10.2021 Date of Order : 20.10.2021 O R D E R PER KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER : Appellant, M/s. Paramount Communication Pv…

Thomson Press (India) Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Spl. Range- 9, New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly

ITA 4308/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

Section 10ASection 10BSection 14ASection 195(2)Section 40

…the preceding assessment year 2006-07, compensation income received by the assessee had been treated as profits derived from the undertaking. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Excel Industries Ltd reported in 358 ITR 285 wherein it was held that it is inappropriate to allow the reconsideration of an issue for a subsequent assessment year if the same "fundamental aspect" permeates in different 13 | P a g e ITA Nos. 4306 to 4308/Del/2017 assessment years and the Revenue cannot be allowed to flip-flop on the issue and it ought to let the matter rest. It was submi…

Thomson Press (India) Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Spl. Range- 9, New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly

ITA 4307/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

Section 10ASection 10BSection 14ASection 195(2)Section 40

Thomson Press (India) Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Spl. Range- 9, New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly

ITA 4306/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

Section 10ASection 10BSection 14ASection 195(2)Section 40

Friends Land Developers, Ghaziabad vs. DCIT, Circle- 1, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2778/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Oct 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Sanjay Gargassessment Year : 2014-15

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 144ASection 153ASection 264

…the case of M/s Larsen and Toubro Limited and another Vs. State of Karnataka and another, 2013 UPTC 1277 is of no assistance to the appellant rather in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Excel Industries Limited (2013) 38 Taxmann.com 100 (SC) it is not prudent for us to take a different view with regard to the nature and status of the business of the respondent- assessee inasmuch as a consistent view taken by the authorities regarding it in favour of the respondent- assessee is not liable to be disturbed in the absence of any convincing and compelling reasons. The second q…

M/S Shubham Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd., Ellenabad vs. DCIT, Circle, Sirsa

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1416/CHANDI/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh05 Oct 2021AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar, Addl. CIT

Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 234Section 234B

…respectively whereas the G.P rate for the year under consideration was at 2.98%. Therefore the A.O. was unjustified in invoking the provisions of Section 145(3) of the Act. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: • CIT Vs. Excel Industries Ltd. 358 ITR 295 (SC) • S.N. Namasivayam Chettial Vs. CIT 38 ITR 579 (SC) • CIT Vs. Paradise Holdiays 325 ITR 13 (Del) • CIT Vs. M/s Rice India Exports Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 999/2010 dated 03.08.2010 • CIT Vs. Smt. Poonam Rani 326 ITR 223 (Del) • CIT Vs. Jas Jack Elegance Exports 324 ITR 95 • ITO Vs. Somsons & Co., 148 Taxman 21 (Asr) (Mag) • Pandit Bors. Vs. CIT…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Bellary vs. Shri Vazhyiel House Narayanan Kutty Menon, Bellary

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1545/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Oct 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri B.K. Singh, CIT(DR)(ITAT), BengaluruFor Respondent: Shri B.S. Balachandran, Advocate

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment year : 2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Vs. Late Shri Vazhyel House of Income Tax, Narayanan Kutty Menon Central Circle 1(1), By L/Rs Bengaluru. Smt. Vijayalakshmi Menon Shri Urathe Krishna Prasad Smt. Febitha Kandan Kulangara Ms. Roshini Kulangara Urathe Ms. Meghna Kulangara Urathe Shri Pramod Menon Smt. Padma Vijayan Ms. Kangana Pramod Ms. Sanjana Pramod 6, 14th Ward, KHB Colony, Sandur. Bellary Dist. PAN: AGXPM 5124G APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by :…

Chandeep Leasing & Finance Co. (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 6(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 458/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.K. Gupta, Sr. DR

…accordingly, submitted that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) be set aside and the grounds raised by the assessee should be allowed. 6. Referring to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs., Excel Industries Ltd., [2013] 358 ITR 295 (SC), the Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said decision has held that income cannot be levied on hypothetical income. Income accrues when it becomes due but it must also be accompanied by a corresponding liability of the other party to pay the amount. Only then can it be said that for the purpose o…

DCIT(E), Circle-1(1), New Delhi vs. Delhi Bureau of Text Books, New Delhi

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7075/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Sept 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Dr. Maninder Kaur, Sr.D.RFor Respondent: Ms. Anubha Malwani, CA

Section 10(23)(c)Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 2

…ined in Parashuram Pottery Works Ltd. vs. Income Tax Officer (1977) 106 ITR 1 (SC), Radhasoami Satsang Saomi Bagh vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (1992) 193 ITR 321 (SC), Hoystead vs. Commissioner of Taxation (1926) AC 155 (PC), CIT vs. Excel Industries (2013) 262 CTR 261 (SC) the Hon'ble High Court held that the Revenue in the absence of any change of circumstances cannot take a 6 I.T.A. No.7075/DEL/2018 different view from that taken in the earlier years. Now turning to the case on hand it is not the case of Revenue that any change in the circumstances had taken place. We, therefore, while respectfully followin…

DCIT CC 44, Mumbai vs. Sopariwala Exports, Mumbai

ITA 3039/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2021AY 2007-08

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 92

…ountries. He further submitted that the rate of commission was duly informed to the RBI. That the said commission has been consistently paid. In this regard he placed reliance upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Excel Industries (358 ITR 295) and Radhasoami Satsang Vs. ACIT (193 ITR 321). He further submitted that the Revenue cannot argue upon the necessity of expenditure as one of the conditions under section 37(1) of the Act. That the expenditure has to be wholly, necessarily and exclusively for the purpose of the business. Hence, learned counsel pleaded that the Assessing Officer…

DCIT Circle-2, Gurgaon vs. Lalit Wadhwa, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4755/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri Amarjeet Singh[Through Video Conferencing] Assessment Year: 2009-10

Section 10BSection 143(3)

…deduction has been allowed in the first assessment year in which the claim was made, the AO cannot withdraw relief for subsequent years if there has been no change in the facts and circumstances of the case. In the case of CIT Vs Excel Industries Ltd. (2013) (358 ITR 295) (Supreme Court), it appeared from the record that in several assessment years, the revenue accepted the order of the Tribunal in favour of the assessee but in respect of some assessment years, the matter was taken up in 10 appeal before the Hon'ble High Court without any success. It was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the revenue could not b…

Cargotec India Pvt Ltd., Navi Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 15(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 399/MUM/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Aug 2021AY 2013-14

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

…ar 2009-10. Ledger account of Mumbai - Office expenses and Amrita Consultancy is enclosed at pages 36 and 37 of the enclosed compilation. In this connection, the appellant places reliance on the decision of Supreme Court in case of Excel Industries Ltd. [2013]358 ITR 295 wherein it held that if there is no difference in the rate of tax, the controversy about the year of assessability is unnecessary and should be 12 M/s. Cargotec India Pvt. Ltd., avoided. 11. 2,33,760 Write-off pertains Journal entry in respect of Allcargo to amount could not amount written off is Global recovered in respect enclosed at Page 38…

M/S Gogga Gurusanthaiah and Brothers, Hospet vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Bellary

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 3319/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jul 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Sivaprasad Reddy, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 37

…ion. A.5. In support of his contentions he placed reliance upon following decisions: • ED.Sasoon & CO Ltd vs CIT reported in (1954) 26 ITR 27 (SC) • CIT vs Balbir Singh Maini reported in (2017) 398 ITR 531 (SC) • CIT vs Excel industries Ltd reported in (2013) 358 ITR 295 • Prakashan leasing Ltd vs DCIT reported in (2012) 208 Taxmann 464 (Kar) A.6. Ld.Counsel also relied on CBDT Notification No.9949 (F.NO.132/7/95- TPL)/SO 69(E), Dated 25/01/1996, superseded by Notification No.32/2015 (F.N.134/48/2010-TPL)/S0 892 (E), Dated 31/03/2015, regarding AS-I, relating to disclosure of accounting policies. A.7. Ld.Counsel…

M/S Gogga Gurusanthaiah and Brothers, Hospet vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Bellary

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 3318/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jul 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Sivaprasad Reddy, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 37

M/S Gogga Gurusanthaiah and Brothers, Hospet vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Bellary

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 3317/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jul 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Sivaprasad Reddy, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 37

DCIT - 1(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Maharashtra Tourism Development Corporation Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 6426/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आमकय अऩीर िं./ Ita No. 6425/Mum/2017 (ननधाायण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2011-12) आमकय अऩीर िं./ Ita No. 6426/Mum/2017 (ननधाायण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2012-13) आमकय अऩीर िं./ Ita No. 1140/Mum/2017 (ननधाायण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2014-15) The Dy. Commissioner Of Income M/S Maharashtra Tourism Tax, Circle 1(2)(2), Development Corporation Room No. 535, 5 Th Floor, Aayakar Ltd. फनाभ/ Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 C.D.O. Hutments, Opp. Lic 020 Bldg, Mada Cama Road, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 (अऩीराथी / Appellant) (प्रत्मथी/ Respondent) स्थामी रेखा िं./Pan No. Aaacm0712G अऩीराथी की ओय े/ Appellant By : Shri Mamta Bansal, Cit Dr प्रत्मथी की ओय े/ Respondent By : Shri Anil Sathe, Ar ुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing: 27.07.2021 घोर्णा की तायीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 27.07.2021 आदेश / O R D E R भहावीय स िंह, उऩाध्मक्ष के द्वाया / Per Mahavir Singh, Vp: These Appeals Of The Revenue Are Arising Out Of Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)]-8, Mumbai [In Short Cit(A)], Mr. Rajen Rasiklal Vora; Ay 10-11 In Appeal No. Cit(A)-8/It-365 & 366/15-16, Cit(A)- 2/It/10479/2016-17 Vide Dated 07.08.2017, 17.12.2018. The Assessments Were Framed By The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 3(2), Mumbai (In Short Ito/ Ao) For The A.Ys. 2011-12, 2012- 13, 2014-15 Vide Order Dated 01.03.2013, 27.03.2015, 28.12.2016 Under Section 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act’).

For Appellant: Shri Mamta Bansal, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sathe, AR

Section 143(3)

…fficer 76 taxmann.com 380 In the alternative, and without prejudice to above, Interest to be reduced from the cost of the asset • CIT VS Bokaro Steel Ltd. 236 ITR 315 Mr. Rajen Rasiklal Vora; AY 10-11 Principle of Consistency • CIT VS Excel Industries Ltd. 358 ITR 295 • Radhasoami Satsang vs. CIT (193 ITR 321) 10. Upon careful consideration, we find that learned CIT(A) has taken a correct view of the matter. The Government directive which has been relied upon by him is duly applicable for the current assessment year. As per the said direction the interest on unutilised grant has to be treated a part of the g…