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)

M/S Volvo India Pvt. Ltd vs. ACIT, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1537/BANG/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 May 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 139Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153(1)Section 18

…re under the mercantile system of accounting, income cannot be said to have accrued to the assessee. It was submitted that the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Excel IT(TP)A No.1537/Bang/2012 Page 19 of 58 Industries Ltd.: (2013) 358 ITR 295 (SC) supports the plea of the Assessee. In the aforesaid decision, the assessee was maintaining its accounts on mercantile basis and accordingly accounted for the benefit of entitlement to make duty free imports in the year of export. However, the aforesaid amounts were excluded by the assessee from computation of total income since the same coul…

The ACIT, Circle-5, Ahmedabad vs. M/S Redex Protech P Ltd, Ahmedabad

ITA 462/AHD/2002[95-96]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 May 2019

Bench: The Tribunal Against Order Of The Ld.Cit(A)-Xi, Ahmedabad Dated 31.12.2001 Passed For The Asstt.Year 1995- 96. On Receipt Of Notice In The Revenue’S Appeal, The Assessee Has Filed Cross Objection Bearing No.28/Ahd/2002. Ita No.462/Ahd/2002 & Others With Co (Special Bench)

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar with Shri P.M. Mehta and Shri Parin ShahFor Respondent: Shri O.P. Sharma, CIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 249(4)Section 255(4)Section 264Section 80I

…ct, then it would be construed as invalid return and no assessment can be made on an invalid return. In his alternative contention, he submitted that Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd., 225 ITR 746 (SC) and Excel Industries Ltd., 358 ITR 295 (SC) propounded that real income or actual income ought to be taxed. In the case of the assessee in one assessment year, order under section 264 has already been passed by the Commissioner recognizing the fact that the assessee has no real income. This order of the Commissioner has been upheld by the Hon’ble High Court also. It will suggest that…

DCIT Cir 6(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu India P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4897/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 May 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am Acit(Cir)-6(2)(1), Mumbai Vs. M/S Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu India Pvt. Ltd., 264-265, Vaswani Chambers, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai-400013 Pan/Gir No.Aabcd 1147 R (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Revenue By Shri D.G. Pansari, Sr.Ar Cit Assessee By Shri P.J.Pardiwala,Ar Shri Niraj Sheth, Ar & Shri Ninad Patade, Ar Date Of Hearing 11/04/2019 Date Of Pronouncement 03/05/2019

Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JM & SHRI M.BALAGANESH, AM ACIT(Cir)-6(2)(1), Mumbai Vs. M/s Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu India Pvt. Ltd., 264-265, Vaswani Chambers, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai-400013 PAN/GIR No.AABCD 1147 R (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Revenue by Shri D.G. Pansari, Sr.AR CIT Assessee by Shri P.J.Pardiwala,AR Shri Niraj Sheth, AR and Shri Ninad Patade, AR Date of Hearing 11/04/2019 Date of Pronouncement 03/05/2019 आदेश / O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH (A.M): This appeal in ITA No.4897/Mum/2017 for A.Y.2008-2009 arises out of the order by the l…

M/S/ Ibs Software P. Ltd, Trivandrum vs. The ACIT, Trivandrum

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

ITA 102/COCH/2019[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin01 May 2019AY 2003-04

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

For Appellant: S/Sri.M.Gopi Krishnan Nambiar / RajakannanFor Respondent: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR

Section 148Section 28

…ately. It was further held in the case that income accrues, when there arises a corresponding liability of the other party, from whom the income become due to pay that amount. These principles were reiterated by the Apex Court in CIT v. Excel Industries Ltd. (358 ITR 295) (SC). In this case the entire amount receivable against the BCA had accrued immediately on execution of the agreement, the taxing of the proportionate amount of nine months upto 31.12.2002 during this year on receipt basis is thus unjustified. The Karnataka High Court in CIT v. Amco Power Systems Ltd (379 ITR 375) (Kar.) has upheld the principle…

The DCIT., Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Amjay Medi-Max India Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 2695/AHD/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Apr 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Mudit Nagpal, Sr. D.RFor Respondent: Shri A. L. Thakkar, A.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…hur and Mrs. Swati Soparkar, learned advocates for the assessee supported the impugned order and submitted that the issue involved in the present appeal is now squarely covered by a decision of the Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Excel Industries Ltd. [2013] 358 ITR 295/219 Taxman 379/38 taxmann.com 100 (SC). 2.4 The Apex Court in the case of Excel Industries Ltd. (supra) has held as under: "32. 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…

Hyundai Capital India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 11(4), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6700/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Apr 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor &For Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, Sr. DR

…otors Ltd., he submitted that the invoice shows installments as per agreement for the month of December, 2012 to March, 2013 at Rs.3,10,81,172/-. Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Excel Industries Ltd., reported in 358 ITR 295 (SC), the ld. counsel for the assessee drew the attention of the Bench to para 32 of the order which reads as under:- 9 “32. 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…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Dharampal Satyapal Ltd., Delhi

ITA 3883/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Apr 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri R. S. Singhvi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay I Bara, CIT DR

Section 142Section 147Section 153Section 153ASection 201(1)Section 36Section 40Section 40A(3)

…Dharampal Satyapal Ltd Vs, DCIT ITA No. 3738, 3739/Del/2016 (A) & ITA No. 3882 & 3883/Del/2016(R) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ―I-1‖: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H. S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 3738, 3739/Del/2016 (Assessment Year: 2010-11, 2011-12) Dharampal Satyapal Ltd, Vs. DCIT, 1711, S. P. Mukherjee Marg, Central Circle-29, Delhi New Delhi PAN: AAACD0132H (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA No. 3882 & 3883/Del/2016 (Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12) DCIT, Vs. Dharampal Satyapal Ltd, Central Circle-29, 1711, S. P. Mukh…

M/S Stone Age Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 690/JPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Apr 2019AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Sogani (CA)For Respondent: Shri Ashok Khanna (JCIT)

Section 143(3)

…10. Thus no benefit of enhancement of closing stock was claimed or allowed in A.Y. 2010-11. This exercise is essentially revenue neutral between two years and/or in subsequent years. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Excel Industries Ltd.(2013) 358 ITR 295 has held that addition in such revenue neutral exercise should not be made by department. Thus on both the counts, there is no justification to make addition for difference valuation of stock and Ld. CIT (A) is wrong and has erred in law in confirming addition of Rs. 30,96,050/- in the hands of assessee as unexplained excess stock found in course…

Cascade Holdings P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 4(3), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years

ITA 937/MUM/2017[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2003-2004 M/S Cascade Holdings Pvt. Ltd., The Acit- Central Circle 4(3), 32, Madhuli, 3Rd Floor, R. No. 413, Aaykar Bhavan, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli, M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400018 Vs. Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaacc5768N (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2011-2012 M/S Cascade Holdings Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant Commissioner Of 32, Madhuli, 3Rd Floor, Income Tax, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli, Central Circle – 31, Mumbai - 400018 Vs. R. No. 413, Aaykar Bhavan, Pan: Aaacc5768N Mumbai - 400020 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah/For Respondent: Dr. P. Daniel (DR)

Section 142Section 143Section 144Section 234ASection 234B

…ustified in holding that the income derived by the Radhasoami Satsang was entitled to exemption under Sections 11 and 12 of the Income Tax Act of 1961.” The aforesaid dictum of law was reiterated recently by the Supreme Court in CIT vs. Excel Industries Ltd.: 358 ITR 295. “It appears from the record that in several assessment years, the Revenue accepted the order of the Tribunal in favour of the Assessee and did not pursue the matter any further but in respect of some assessment years the matter was taken up in appeal before the Bombay High Court but without any success. That being so, the Revenue cannot be allow…

Parveen Industries (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Special Range- 7, New Delhi

In the result, ground of appeal raised by assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6504/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2013-14 With S.A. No. 972/Del/2018 [Arising Out Of Ita No.6504/Del/2017] Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Parveen Industries (P.) Vs. Addl. Cit, Ltd., Special Range-7, New Delhi Plot No. 32, Phase-Ii, Badli Industrial Area, New Delhi Pan :Aaacp4029K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By S/Shri Gautam Jain, Lalit Mohan & Piyush Kamal, Advocates Respondent By Sh. H.K. Choudhary, Cit(Dr)

Section 143(3)Section 92BSection 92CSection 92F

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: “I-2”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2013-14 With S.A. No. 972/Del/2018 [Arising out of ITA No.6504/Del/2017] Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/s. Parveen Industries (P.) Vs. Addl. CIT, Ltd., Special Range-7, New Delhi Plot No. 32, Phase-II, Badli Industrial Area, New Delhi PAN :AAACP4029K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by S/shri Gautam Jain, Lalit Mohan & Piyush Kamal, Advocates Respondent by Sh. H.K. Choudhary, CIT(DR) Date of hearing 14.02.2019 Date of pronouncement 29.03.2019 ORDER PER…