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 147Section 14ASection 132Section 153ASection 1961Section 148
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

right to receivemercantile system of accountingrule of consistencysection 35profits and gains of business or professionrevenue expenditureliable to taxsection 80isection 37(1)section 28section 32capital expenditure

Judgments citing CIT v. Excel Industries Ltd.

Pr.Commissioner vs. M/S. Esteem Classic

In the result, the appeals preferred by the Revenue

ITA/844/2018HC Karnataka22 Mar 2021

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.G.S. KAMAL

Section 260Section 260A

…percentage completion method is without any specific provision, for the same is not in accordance with law. In support of 12 the aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on the decisions of: i) CIT vs. EXCEL INDUSTRIES (2013) 358 ITR 295 (SC) ii) CIT vs. BILAHARI INVESTMENTS (2008) 299 ITR 1 (SC) It is also pointed out that the completed contract method of computation has been accepted by the Revenue for the subsequent Assessment years 2013- 2014 and 2014-2015. 8. We have considered the submissions made on both sides and have perused the afore…

Pr.Commissioner vs. M/S. Esteem Classic

In the result, the appeals preferred by the Revenue

ITA/843/2018HC Karnataka22 Mar 2021

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.G.S. KAMAL

Section 260Section 260A

…percentage completion method is without any specific provision, for the same is not in accordance with law. In support of 12 the aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on the decisions of: i) CIT vs. EXCEL INDUSTRIES (2013) 358 ITR 295 (SC) ii) CIT vs. BILAHARI INVESTMENTS (2008) 299 ITR 1 (SC) It is also pointed out that the completed contract method of computation has been accepted by the Revenue for the subsequent Assessment years 2013- 2014 and 2014-2015. 8. We have considered the submissions made on both sides and have perused the afore…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax -5(1), Indore vs. M/S Sunderdeep Constructions Pvt. Ltd., Indore

In the result both the appeals of the revenue vide ITA No

ITA 786/IND/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore09 Mar 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…‘A’. 10. It is a settled law that once an amount has been subjected to tax in a given assessment year, it cannot be taxed again in another assessment year. This principle emerged from the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Excel Industries Ltd. 358 ITR 295 (SC) [2013]. It was held – “Thirdly, the real question concerning us is the year in which the assessee is required to pay tax. There is no dispute that in the subsequent accounting year, the assessee did make imports and did derive benefits under the advance licence and the duty entitlement pass book and paid tax thereon. Therefore, it is not as…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax -5(1), Indore vs. M/S Sunderdeep Constructions Pvt. Ltd., Indore

In the result both the appeals of the revenue vide ITA No

ITA 784/IND/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore09 Mar 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…‘A’. 10. It is a settled law that once an amount has been subjected to tax in a given assessment year, it cannot be taxed again in another assessment year. This principle emerged from the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Excel Industries Ltd. 358 ITR 295 (SC) [2013]. It was held – “Thirdly, the real question concerning us is the year in which the assessee is required to pay tax. There is no dispute that in the subsequent accounting year, the assessee did make imports and did derive benefits under the advance licence and the duty entitlement pass book and paid tax thereon. Therefore, it is not as…

Rites Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Special Range-7, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 706/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri N.K. Billaiya[Assessment Year: 2012-13]

For Appellant: Shri R.S .Singhvi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gurmil Singh, Sr. DR
Section 14ASection 2Section 37

…income had accrued or received. That in the absence of any legal or statutory right or acceptance of (ii) claim by other party, there is no case of any such income in the light of principle laid down by Supreme Court in the case of Excel Industries Ltd.(2013)358 ITR 295. That alleged claims is of contingent nature and there is no (iii) justification for any addition on factual or legal basis. (iv) That in any case, the impugned addition is in total disregard to decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in appellant’s own case for AY 2008-09 wherein deletion of identical addition by Hon’ble ITAT has been upheld by Hi…

Deutsche Investments India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 12, Mumbai

Accordingly, the order passed u/s 263 is set aside and the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 3630/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 3630/Mum/2016 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11)

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala & ShriFor Respondent: Shri Ashima Gupta, AR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VP & SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 3630/Mum/2016 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Deutsche Investments India PCIT Range-12, Mumbai Pvt. Ltd., Nirlon Knowledge Park, 3rd Pin- बिधम/ floor, Block B-1, Off- Vs. Western Express Highway, Goregaon (east), Mumbai-400 063 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ PAN No. AACCD1765E (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant : Shri Percy Pardiwala & Shri Niraj Sheth, ARs by प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondentby : Shri Ashima Gupta, AR सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 14.12.2020…

Ranjit Gupta, Noida vs. DCIT, Circle- 3, Noida

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 55/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Feb 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year : 2013-14 Ranjit Gupta Vs. Dcit A-24, Sector-51, Circle – 3, Noida-201301 Noida Pan : Acwpg 9130 H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ved Jain, Ca Shri Ashish Goel, Adv. Revenue By Shri Govind Singhal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 18/02/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 18/02/2021 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am:

Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) Assessment Year : 2013-14 Ranjit Gupta Vs. DCIT A-24, Sector-51, Circle – 3, Noida-201301 Noida PAN : ACWPG 9130 H (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by Shri Ved Jain, CA Shri Ashish Goel, Adv. Revenue by Shri Govind Singhal, Sr. DR Date of hearing: 18/02/2021 Date of Pronouncement: 18/02/2021 ORDER PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 25.09.2017 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (…

Ciba India Ltd, Mumbai vs. JCIT (OSD) RG 8(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

ITA 4210/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Feb 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Saktijit Dey

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal a/wFor Respondent: Shri Anand Mohan

…28)(ITAT Hyderabad) 14. Ingersoll Rand (India) Ltd. v DCIT (67 taxmann.com 328) ITAT Bangalore 15. Dresser-Rand India Pvt. Ltd. v Addl.CIT (13 taxmann.com 82 (Mum.) 16. Castrol India Ltd. v ACIT (ITA No.3938–4413/M/2010)(Mum.) 17. CIT v Excel Industries Ltd. (358 ITR 295)(SC) 18. CIT v Arthur Andrson & Co. (318 ITR 229)(Bom) 19. Clariant Chemicals (India) Ltd. v JCIT (44 taxmann.com 421)Mum. 20. Thomas Cook (India) Ltd. v DCIT (70 taxmann.com 322) 21. Benetton India (P.) Ltd. v DCIT (87 taxmann.com 241) (Del.) 22. Qual Core Logic Ltd v DCIT (22 taxmann.com 4) (Hyd.) 23. ACIT v MSS India (P) Ltd (32 SOT 132) (Pune…

Dabur Invest Corp, New Delhi vs. JCIT, Range-46, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 8058/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Partially Through Video Conferencing) Dabur Invest Corp, The Joint Commissioner Of Vs. 4Th Floor, Punjabi Bhawan, 10, Income Tax , Rouse Avenue, New Delhi Range-46, Pan: Aaadfd2529G New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri M. P. Rastogi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri G. C. Srivastava, Adv
Section 143Section 4

…to the tax matters is an established principle, but principle of consistency does. The principle of consistency is also cardinal principle of taxation as held by the honourable Supreme Court in Radhasoami Satsang v. Commissioner of Income-tax 193 ITR 321 and 358 ITR 295. Further, saying that there was an error in earlier acceptance of the order/stand of the assessee, therefore revenue‟s stand is changed stating that there is no heroism in perpetuating an error, there is no quarrel with that principle but the revenue must point out what is the error in the consistently adopted methodology acceptable to revenue an…

ACIT Ltu 2, Chennai vs. Nlc India Limited, Neyveli

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue for both assessment years are dismissed

ITA 952/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Feb 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 868 & 869/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. Nlc India Ltd., The Dcit, (Formerly Known As Neyveli V. Company Circle Vi(4), Lignite Corporation Ltd.), Chennai. Block-1, Corporate Office, Neyveli Township, Cuddalore District, Neyveli – 607 801. Pan: Aaacn1121C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 952 & 953/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Dcit, M/S. Nlc India Ltd., Company Circle Vi(4), V. (Formerly Known As Neyveli Chennai. Lignite Corporation Ltd.), Block-1, Corporate Office, Neyveli Township, Cuddalore District, Neyveli – 607 801. Pan: Aaacn1121C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रतीक" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Raghavan Ramabadran, Ca : राज"कीओरसे /Revenue By Shri G. Srinivasa Rao, Cit

For Appellant: Shri Raghavan Ramabadran, CA
Section 14ASection 80I

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी वी दुगा" राव,"या"यक सद"य एवं "ी जी. मंजुनाथ, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.: 868 & 869/CHNY/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/s. NLC India Ltd., The DCIT, (Formerly known as Neyveli v. Company Circle VI(4), Lignite Corporation Ltd.), Chennai. Block-1, Corporate Office, Neyveli Township, Cuddalore District, Neyveli – 607 801. PAN: AAACN1121C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./ITA N…

ACIT Ltu 2, Chennai vs. Nlc India Limited, Neyveli

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue for both assessment years are dismissed

ITA 953/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Feb 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 868 & 869/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. Nlc India Ltd., The Dcit, (Formerly Known As Neyveli V. Company Circle Vi(4), Lignite Corporation Ltd.), Chennai. Block-1, Corporate Office, Neyveli Township, Cuddalore District, Neyveli – 607 801. Pan: Aaacn1121C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 952 & 953/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Dcit, M/S. Nlc India Ltd., Company Circle Vi(4), V. (Formerly Known As Neyveli Chennai. Lignite Corporation Ltd.), Block-1, Corporate Office, Neyveli Township, Cuddalore District, Neyveli – 607 801. Pan: Aaacn1121C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रतीक" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Raghavan Ramabadran, Ca : राज"कीओरसे /Revenue By Shri G. Srinivasa Rao, Cit

For Appellant: Shri Raghavan Ramabadran, CA
Section 14ASection 80I

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी वी दुगा" राव,"या"यक सद"य एवं "ी जी. मंजुनाथ, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.: 868 & 869/CHNY/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/s. NLC India Ltd., The DCIT, (Formerly known as Neyveli v. Company Circle VI(4), Lignite Corporation Ltd.), Chennai. Block-1, Corporate Office, Neyveli Township, Cuddalore District, Neyveli – 607 801. PAN: AAACN1121C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./ITA N…

Nlc India Ltd., Neyveli vs. DCIT Ltu II, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue for both assessment years are dismissed

ITA 869/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Feb 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 868 & 869/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. Nlc India Ltd., The Dcit, (Formerly Known As Neyveli V. Company Circle Vi(4), Lignite Corporation Ltd.), Chennai. Block-1, Corporate Office, Neyveli Township, Cuddalore District, Neyveli – 607 801. Pan: Aaacn1121C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 952 & 953/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Dcit, M/S. Nlc India Ltd., Company Circle Vi(4), V. (Formerly Known As Neyveli Chennai. Lignite Corporation Ltd.), Block-1, Corporate Office, Neyveli Township, Cuddalore District, Neyveli – 607 801. Pan: Aaacn1121C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रतीक" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Raghavan Ramabadran, Ca : राज"कीओरसे /Revenue By Shri G. Srinivasa Rao, Cit

For Appellant: Shri Raghavan Ramabadran, CA
Section 14ASection 80I

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी वी दुगा" राव,"या"यक सद"य एवं "ी जी. मंजुनाथ, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.: 868 & 869/CHNY/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/s. NLC India Ltd., The DCIT, (Formerly known as Neyveli v. Company Circle VI(4), Lignite Corporation Ltd.), Chennai. Block-1, Corporate Office, Neyveli Township, Cuddalore District, Neyveli – 607 801. PAN: AAACN1121C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./ITA N…

Nlc India Ltd., Neyveli vs. DCIT Ltu II, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue for both assessment years are dismissed

ITA 868/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Feb 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 868 & 869/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. Nlc India Ltd., The Dcit, (Formerly Known As Neyveli V. Company Circle Vi(4), Lignite Corporation Ltd.), Chennai. Block-1, Corporate Office, Neyveli Township, Cuddalore District, Neyveli – 607 801. Pan: Aaacn1121C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 952 & 953/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Dcit, M/S. Nlc India Ltd., Company Circle Vi(4), V. (Formerly Known As Neyveli Chennai. Lignite Corporation Ltd.), Block-1, Corporate Office, Neyveli Township, Cuddalore District, Neyveli – 607 801. Pan: Aaacn1121C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रतीक" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Raghavan Ramabadran, Ca : राज"कीओरसे /Revenue By Shri G. Srinivasa Rao, Cit

For Appellant: Shri Raghavan Ramabadran, CA
Section 14ASection 80I

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी वी दुगा" राव,"या"यक सद"य एवं "ी जी. मंजुनाथ, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.: 868 & 869/CHNY/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/s. NLC India Ltd., The DCIT, (Formerly known as Neyveli v. Company Circle VI(4), Lignite Corporation Ltd.), Chennai. Block-1, Corporate Office, Neyveli Township, Cuddalore District, Neyveli – 607 801. PAN: AAACN1121C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./ITA N…

M/S Kei Industries Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 688/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jan 2021AY 2013-14
Section 10Section 115Section 115JSection 14Section 36Section 43Section 43A

…a). Thus, the Ld. CIT(A) was bound to follow rule of consistency and should not have taken a contrary view in A.Y. 2012- 2013. We rely upon the Judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of RadhasoamiSatsung 193 ITR 321 (SC) and Excel Industries Ltd., 358 ITR 295 (SC). The assessee has also followed Companies Rules, 2009 because it has given option to the assessee to do so. The decision of Mumbai Bench in the case of DDIT v. Staubil A.G. India Branch Office (supra), relied upon by the Ld. CIT(A) is on identical facts. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the Order of the Ld. CIT(A) in following the same. I…

DCIT Cent. Cir. -5(3) (Erstwhile DCIT Cent. Cir. -36), Mumbai vs. Sumer Builders, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5130/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri M. Balaganesh, Hon'Blem/S. Sumer Builders V. Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Central Circle – 5(3) 201, Commerce House {Erstwhile Dcit, Central Circle – 36} 140, Nm Road, Fort Room No. 1906, 19Th Floor Mumbai – 400 023 Air India Building, Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aaafs2829R

For Appellant: Shri Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Shri A. Mohan
Section 36(1)(iii)

…counting followed by the assesse. Thus, the grounds on this issue deserve to be allowed merely on the principle of consistency as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Radhasoami Satsang [193 ITR 321, 1992 AIR 377] and CIT v. Excel Industries [358 ITR 295 (SC)]. Further, admittedly the on-money is merely receipts of sale proceeds as noted by the Assessing Officer in his order at Page No. 3 and what could be taxed is only income and not receipts. We further note that in various judgements relied on above it has been categorically held that on-money receipts are in the nature of sale price and not i…

Sumer Builders, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 5(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4915/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri M. Balaganesh, Hon'Blem/S. Sumer Builders V. Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Central Circle – 5(3) 201, Commerce House {Erstwhile Dcit, Central Circle – 36} 140, Nm Road, Fort Room No. 1906, 19Th Floor Mumbai – 400 023 Air India Building, Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aaafs2829R

For Appellant: Shri Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Shri A. Mohan
Section 36(1)(iii)

…counting followed by the assesse. Thus, the grounds on this issue deserve to be allowed merely on the principle of consistency as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Radhasoami Satsang [193 ITR 321, 1992 AIR 377] and CIT v. Excel Industries [358 ITR 295 (SC)]. Further, admittedly the on-money is merely receipts of sale proceeds as noted by the Assessing Officer in his order at Page No. 3 and what could be taxed is only income and not receipts. We further note that in various judgements relied on above it has been categorically held that on-money receipts are in the nature of sale price and not i…

M/S. Ecoplast Ltd., Valsad vs. The Add. CIT, Valsad Range, Valsad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2517/AHD/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Dec 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2517/Ahd/2014 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2010-11) Ecoplast Limited, Vs. The Additional Commissioner S No.309, National Highway No.8, Of Income Tax, Valsad Range, Water Works Cross Road, Abrama, Valsad. Valsad-396 001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaace5030H (Assessee) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Tushar P Hemani, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Anupama Singhla, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154

…r consideration is assessed to tax at the “same rate of tax” every year, therefore the entire exercise of making the impugned addition is revenue neutral. For that we rely on the judgment of the Hon'ble the Apex Court in case of CIT Vs. Excel Industries Ltd. -358 ITR 295 (SC), wherein it was held that since assessee is assessed to tax at the "same rate of tax" every year, the entire exercise of making the impugned addition is revenue neutral. The relevant para of the said judgment is reproduced below: “32. Thirdly, the real question concerning us is the year in which the assessee is required to pay tax. There is…

DCIT, C-, 1 (E), Chandigarh vs. M/S Punjab Medical Foundation Charitable Trust, Jalandhar

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 10/CHANDI/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Dec 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-"नधा"रण वष"/ Asstt.Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Cir.1(Exemption) M/S.Punjab Medical Foundation Chandigarh. Vs. Charitable Trust 63-64, Waryam Nagar Cool Road, Jalandhar Pan : Aaatp 5171 B (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Sudhir Sehal, Advocate Assessee By Revenue By : Shri Ashok K. Khana, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 18/11/2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/12/2020 आदेश/O R D E R

For Respondent: Shri Ashok K. Khana, Addl.CIT
Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 143(2)Section 2(15)

…as an income of the in the capacity of AOP. 4.9 The appellant has submitted that there is no justification in the action of the AO to adopt a different approach as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Excel Industries Ltd. (2013) 358 ITR 295 (SC) and Radha Soami Satsang v. CIT (1992) 193 ITR 321 (SC). There is no material change in the facts in all the previous years and the view taken for previous years would continue on the principle of consistency the assessee finds support from the decision reported in 245 ITR 492, 264 ITR 276. It is stated that exemption had been granted to the…

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

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

ITA 242/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Dec 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. H. S. Sidhudr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 240/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 241/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 242/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Acit(E), Vs Delhi Bureau Of Text Books, Circle-1(1), 25/2, Institutional Area, Pankha New Delhi Road, D-Block, Janakpuri, New Delhi-110058 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaatd4122G Assessee By : Sh. Amit Kumar Gupta, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Jagdish Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.11.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.12.2020

For Appellant: Sh. Amit Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Jagdish Singh, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)

…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 ITA Nos. 240 to 242/Del/2018 9 Delhi Bureau of Text Books change of circumstances cannot take a 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, theref…

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

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

ITA 241/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Dec 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. H. S. Sidhudr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 240/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 241/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 242/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Acit(E), Vs Delhi Bureau Of Text Books, Circle-1(1), 25/2, Institutional Area, Pankha New Delhi Road, D-Block, Janakpuri, New Delhi-110058 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaatd4122G Assessee By : Sh. Amit Kumar Gupta, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Jagdish Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.11.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.12.2020

For Appellant: Sh. Amit Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Jagdish Singh, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)

…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 ITA Nos. 240 to 242/Del/2018 9 Delhi Bureau of Text Books change of circumstances cannot take a 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, theref…