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 366,339 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.

Oricon Travels P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 31, Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4977/MUM/2013[1993-94]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2016AY 1993-94

Bench: Sh. B.R. Baskaran & Sh. Pawan Singh

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 220(2)Section 233ASection 253Section 254(1)

…s Jai Devi Anandram Jaipuria Public Charitable Trust (245 ITR 295), decision of Bombay High Court in Pfizer Corporation Vs CIT 259 ITR 391, and in CIT Vs Nagri Mills Co Ltd (33ITR 681) and decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of CIT Vs Excel Industries Ltd (358 ITR 295). On the other hand the ld DR for the revenue vehemently argued that that assessee Company was following Mercantile System of Accounting. It was further argued that income must be taxed when it became due and cannot be offered as per the choice of the assessee. The learned DR for revenue further argued that if the contention of the assessee is ac…

Sh. Sunder Lal Semwal, Haridwar vs. ACIT, Haridwar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 1901/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Oct 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: : Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Sh. B. Ramnujaneyula, Sr. DR

Section 80I

…here is no justification to discard the same in subsequent year. It was submitted that the ld. Authorities below have to follow the rule of consistency. Reliance is placed for this proposition on the following decisions : (i). CIT vs. Excel Industries Ltd.358 ITR 295 (SC) (ii). CIT vs. J.K. Charitable Trust, 308 ITR 161 (SC) 7 ITA No.1901/Del./2014 It was further submitted the ld. CIT(A) while deleting the similar addition in appeal for A.Y. 2009-10 has realized the mistake committed by him in appeal for A.Y. under consideration observing as under : "In this connection, it needs to be put on record that,…

S. Mansukhlal & Co., Mumbai vs. DCIT 14(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 4793/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Oct 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 4793/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11) M/S. S. Mansukhlal & Co., The Deputy Commissioner बनाम/ Srbc & Associates Llp, Of Income Tax –14(2), V. Chartered Accountants, Earnest House, Iii Floor, 12 Th Floor, The Ruby, Nariman Point, 29, Senapati Bapat Marg, Mumbai – 400 021. Dadar (West), Mumbai – 400 028. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aahfs9459A .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Kashyap (D.R.)

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…ion which takes time and once the license is registered by the Custom authorities, then ITA 4793/Mum/2014 9 only the same can be sold. The ld. Counsel relied on the following case laws in support of his contention:- 1. CIT v. Excel Industries Ltd., (2013) 358 ITR 295 (SC) 2. Unites Phosphorous Ltd. v. Addl. CIT, (2014)91 CCH 91 (Guj) 3. Liquidator Polymerland India Pvt. Ltd. V. DCIT, (2015)93 CCH 85 (Del HC) 4. Topman Exports V. CIT, (2012)342 ITR 49 (SC) The ld. Counsel submitted that the assessee has rightly brought to tax income from sale of DEPB license in the subsequent year when the DEPB licenses’ wer…

Hero Motocorp Limited, New Delhi vs. JCIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1545/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. I. C. Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishihero Motocorp Limited, Jcit, 34, Basant Lok, Vasant Range-1, New Delhi Vs. Vihar, New Delhi Pan: Aaach0812J (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, M/S. Hero Moto Corp. Circle-11(1), Ltd., 34, Community Vs. New Delhi Centre, Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-110057 (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, M/S. Hero Moto Corp. Circle-11(1), Ltd., 34, Community

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. NC Sawain, CIT DR

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C

…b. Corresponding adjustment would need to be carried out in the opening stock of the succeeding year. c. The addition, if any, is revenue neutral, if seen in a macro perspective and, therefore, no adjustment is called for. [Refer: CIT v. Excel Industries Ltd.:358 ITR 295 (SC); CIT v. Nagri Mills Company Ltd.: 33 ITR 681 (Bom.); Triveni Engineering Industries Ltd.: 336 ITR 374 (Del.)] d. He further argued that The contention of the assessing officer that the revenue aspect will keep on changing from year to year, as there might be chances when in one year Hero MotoCorp Limited Vs. JCIT & DCIT Vs. Hero MotoCorp Ltd…

Vatsala Shenoy vs. Jt.Commissioner of Income Tax

C.A. No.-001234-001234 - 2012Supreme Court18 Oct 2016

Section 260Section 583(4)(a)

…a going concern with further premise that it was a slump sale. It is pointed out that the firm was doing business even after the winding up petition was filed and as a going concern, it was put to sale. 7 (1992) 1 SCC 659 : 193 ITR 321 8 (2014) 13 SCC 459 : 358 ITR 295 Page 19 JUDGMENT 19 21) Mr. Radhakrishnan, learned senior counsel appearing for the Revenue, has refuted the aforesaid premise of the argument by submitting that though it was sold as a going concern, nevertheless, the assets were that of a dissolved firm as the firm had come to an end on December 06, 1987 by afflux of time. In order to establ…

Vatsala Shenoy vs. Jt.Commissioner of Income Tax

C.A. No.-001234-001234 - 2012Supreme Court18 Oct 2016

Section 260Section 583(4)(a)

Shri. Rajendra Ghag, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT-20, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3110/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Rajendra Ghag, Pr. Cit -20, 105, B-Win, Sea Flama, बनाम/ Piramal Chambers, Dosti Flamingo, T.J. Road, Lalbaugh Vs. Sewree(W) Mumbai Mumbai-400015 (Appellant) (Revenue) P.A. No. Aeupg9093B Appellant By Shri Girish Dave & Smt. Makhija, (Ar) Shri Sunil K. Jha (Cit-Dr) Revenue By सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 06/10/2016 06/10/2016 आदेश क" तार"ख /Date Of Order: आदेश / O R D E R Per Ashwani Taneja (): This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mumbai-20,{(In Short ‘Cit’}, Dated 28.03.2016 U/S 263 For The Assessment Year 2011-12 On The Following Grounds:

Section 143(3)Section 263

…he assessee shall extend requisite cooperation to the AO by filing details and evidences as may be required by the AO as per law and facts of this case. Our view is supported by the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Excel Industries Ltd. 358 ITR 295. The relevant portion of the same is reproduced hereunder: “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 advance licence and the duty entitlement pass book 6 Rajend…

M/S Bairavi Properties & Construction Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 203/BANG/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Sept 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S . Sundar Rajan, JCIT (D.R)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…has been offered to tax then the same is an allowable deduction under the IT Act. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the following decisions : a) CIT Vs. Vodafone Essar South Ltd. 2014-TIOL-2045-HC-DEL-IT b) CIT Vs. Excel Industries Ltd. (2013) 358 ITR 295 (SC) c) Dumraon Textile Ltd. Vs. DCIT 2016-TIOL-1489-HC-KOL-IT The ld. AR then submitted that since the assessee has not claimed this expenditure in the subsequent assessment year therefore this is revenue neutral claim as the assessee is being taxed at the maximum rates. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the following decision…

Vidhya Pharma Chem P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT (A) -8, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7118/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 7118/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11)

For Appellant: Ms. Anu Krishna Agarwal

Section 143(1)Section 28

…Accordingly, the ground of appeal is dismissed.” 10. We have analyzed the orders passed by CIT(A) and we have also considered the latest judgment relied upon by learned AR of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. M/s. Excel Industries Ltd., reported in 358 ITR 295. The operative portion of the same is reproduced below. “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 advance licence and the duty entitlement pass book and paid tax…

Sh. Raj Kumar Jain, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result the appeal is allowed

ITA 2821/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Sept 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri Kuldip Singhay: 2008-09 Sh. Raj Kumar Jain Vs. Dy.Cit, Circle 24(1) A 2/31, Safdarjung Enclave New Delhi New Delhi 110 029 Pan: Aagpj 5125 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh. Gautam Jain, C.A. Respondent By : Sh. Anil Kr. Sharma, Sr.D.R.

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Anil Kr. Sharma, Sr.D.R

Section 143(3)Section 24Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)Section 57

…the claim of the assessee was allowed by the A.O. He specifically drew the attention of the Bench to the assessment order for the A.Y. 2012-13, which is an order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act and relied on the following cases. (i) CIT vs. Excel Industries Ltd. 358 ITR 295 (S.C.) (ii) CIT vs. JK Charitable Trust 308 ITR 161 (S.C.) (b) That the amount of loan taken was utilized for purchase of controlling interest of M/s Garabond Hotels Pvt.Ltd. He argued that when funds are borrowed for acquiring controlling interest in an enterprise, the interest paid on such funds is allowable as deduction, as acquiring controlli…

Shri Arihant Traders, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 20, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is partly allowed with our directions as given above

ITA 2255/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Arihant Traders, Pr. Cit-20 211- B Prabhat Bldg, Pirmal Chambers बनाम/ Deodhar Rd Matunga (Cr) Mumbai- Vs. Mumbai -400019 (Revenue) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Ablfs6608N Assessee By Shri Vijay Mehta (Ar) Revenue By Shri Sanjay Singh (Cit-Dr)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…tion if not allowed in this year, even then it will be allowable in the next year when admittedly sale of lottery tickets had taken place. In this regard we are reminded of a recent judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Excel Industries Ltd. 358 ITR 295 to deal with such situations, wherein their lordships inter-alia observed 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 the advance licence and the duty en…

M/S Indian Farmers Fertiliser Cooperative Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 2487/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri J.S. Reddy

For Appellant: Sh. Vijay Ranjan, Adv. Sh. Vartik RFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Saroha, CIT(DR)

Section 263Section 36(1)(iii)

…or facts to take a different view. Reliance is placed in this regard on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Radha Soami Satsang versus Commissioner of Income Tax, [1992] 193 ITR 321 (SC), (followed by the Apex Court in CIT Vs. Excel Industries [2013] 358 ITR 295) which held that when a fundamental aspect pervading through different assessment years has been found as a fact in one way or the other, it would inappropriate to allow the position to be changed in a subsequent year particularly when the said finding has been accepted. The said principle is also based upon the rules of certainty and consistency…

D.C.I.T Cir - 6, Kolkata vs. M/S Integrated Coal Mining Ltd, Kolkata

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

ITA 1758/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Sept 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

Section 14ASection 43B

…ITA Nos. 1758 & 1804/Kol/13 M/s. Integrated Coal Mining Ltd 16 5.3.2. We hold that the reliance placed by the Learned AR on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs Excel Industries Ltd and CIT vs Mafatlal Industries P Ltd reported in 358 ITR 295 (SC) wherein their Lordships had held as follows:- ITA Nos. 1758 & 1804/Kol/13 M/s. Integrated Coal Mining Ltd 17 “Secondly as noted by the tribunal, a consistent view has been taken in favour of the assesssee on the questions raised, starting with the assessment year 1992-93 , that the benefits under the advance licences or under the duty ent…

Trent Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the AO is dismissed

ITA 1162/MUM/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: S/Shri Rajendra & C.N. Prasadआयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita/1162/Mum/2011,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Years: 2005-06 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Trent Ltd., Dcit-Range-2(3) Bombay House, 2Nd Floor Aayakar Bhavan Vs. 24, Homi Mody Street, Fort Mumbai. Mumbai-400 001. Pan:Aaacl 1838 J आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita/1725/Mum/2011,िनधा"रण अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Years: 2005-06 वष" Dcit-Range-2(3) Trent Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai. Vs. Mumbai. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By:Shri Sathya Moorthy-Dr Assessee By: Shri Nitesh Joshi सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 14.07.2016 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement:24.08.2016 आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 क" क" धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आयकर आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम क" क" धारा धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" सद"य राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार Per Rajendra, Am- अनुसार Challenging The Order Dated 06/12/2010 Of The Cit (A)-6,Mumbai The Assessing Officer(Ao) & The Assessee Have Filed The Cross-Appeals For The Year Under Consideration.Assessee-Company, Engaged In The Business Of Retailing For Ready- Made Garments Etc.Filed Its Original Return Of Income On 27.10.2005,Declaring Total Income At Rs. 12.75 Crores.The Ao Completed The Assessment U/S.143(3)Of The Act, On 05.10.2007,Determining Its Income At Rs. Nil,After Setting Off Loss Of The Earlier Years.

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Sathya Moorthy-DR

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 23Section 24Section 254(1)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मुंबई “ई” खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal -“E”Bench Mumbai सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" राजे"",लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं एवं सी सी. एन एन. "साद "साद,"याियक "याियक सद"य सद"य सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" राजे"" लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं एवं सी सी एन एन "साद "साद "याियक "याियक सद"य सद"य Before S/Shri Rajendra,Accountant Member and C.N. Prasad,Judicial Member आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./ITA/1162/Mum/2011,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Years: 2005-06 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Trent Ltd., DCIT-Range-2(3) Bombay House, 2nd Floor Aayakar Bhavan Vs. 24, Homi Mody Street, Fort Mumbai. Mumbai-400 0…

ADIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Rolls Royce Singapore Pte Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 862/DEL/2012[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Aug 2016AY 2001-02

Bench: : Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. V.R. Sonbhadra, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Sh Gaurav Gupta, Advocate &

Section 115ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…i). CIT v Shriram Pistons & Rings Ltd., judgement dated 5.5.2008 in appeal number: ITR 133 / 1991 (iv). CIT v Vishnu Industrial Gases P. Ltd.: judgement date 06/05/2008 in appeal number: ITR No. 229/1988 (v). In the case of CIT v. Excel Industries Ltd. [2013] 358 ITR 295 (SC) 6.3 It was also submitted that mere making mere making an incorrect claim in the return cannot be said to have furnished inaccurate particulars where Assessee had furnished complete details in respect of the claim made. Reliance in this regard is placed on following decisions: (i). CIT v. Reliance Petro Product (P.) Ltd. [2010] 322 ITR 158…

Regen Powertech Private Lmited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee and Department are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 786/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Aug 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. B. Ramakrishnan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri. Anuragh Sahay, CIT

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(24)(xviii)Section 37(1)

…horised Representative explained that if the differential sum is not allowed in the year of creating provision, the same needs to be allowed in the year of reversal and the ld. Authorised Representative relied on the decision of CIT vs. Excel Industries Ltd 358 ITR 295(SC) and prayed for allowing the appeal. 7.4 Contra, the ld. Departmental Representative relied on the orders of ld. Assessing Officer and DRP and vehemently opposed to the grounds. ITA No.766 & 786/Mds/2016 :- 21 -: 7.5 We heard the rival submissions, perused the material on record and judicial decisions cited. The ld. Authorised Representati…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Regen Powertech (P) Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee and Department are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 766/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Aug 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. B. Ramakrishnan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri. Anuragh Sahay, CIT

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(24)(xviii)Section 37(1)

Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, four appeals of the assessee for AY: 2006-07 & 2008-

ITA 868/BANG/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Aug 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A.K.Garodia, Accounant Member

For Appellant: Shri Shreehari Kutsa, CAFor Respondent: Smt. P. Renugadevi, JCIT

Section 201Section 201(1)

…bmitted that reliance is being placed on the following judicial pronouncements; i) E.D Sason & Co., Ltd Vs CIT 26 ITR 27(SC) ii)Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co Vs CIT 46 ITR 144(SC) iii) CIT Vs Birla Gwalior Pvt.Ltd 89 ITR 266(SC) iv) CIT Vs WExcel Industries Ltd., 358 ITR 295(SC) v) State Bank of Travancore Vs CIT 158 ITR 102(SC) vi) Morvi Industries Ltd., Vs CIT 82 ITR 835 (SC) vii) Godhara Electricity Co.Ltd.,CIT 225 ITR 746 (SC) viii) M/s P.G & W.Sawoo Pv.Ltd., Vs ACIT in Civil appeal No.4091 of 2016 arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos.6384 of 2009 dated 19/04/2016. Reliance on these judgments was placed in support of t…

ACIT, Circle - 56, Kolkata vs. The West Bengal State Co-Opt. Bank Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeals as well as the cross-objections are dismissed

ITA 737/KOL/2011[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Aug 2016AY 1996-97

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am] I.T.Anos.737-742/Kol/2011 Assessment Years : 1996-97 To 2001-02 A.C.I.T., Circle-56, -Vs.- The West Bengal State Co-Operative Kolkata Bank Ltd.Kolkata [Pan : Aaaat 7072 N] (Respondent) (Appellant) C.O.Nos.36-40/Kol/2011 (A/O I.T.A Nos. 737-741/Kol/2011 ) Assessment Years : 1996-97 To 2000-2001 The West Bengal State Co-Operative -Vs.- A.C.I.T., Circle-56, Bank Ltd., Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aaaat 7072 N] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Department : Shri G.Mallikarjuna, Cit(Dr) For The Assessee : Shri N.C.Mondal, Ca Date Of Hearing : 27.07.2016. Date Of Pronouncement : 03.08.2016. Order Per Bench

For Appellant: Shri N.C.Mondal, CAFor Respondent: Shri G.Mallikarjuna, CIT(DR)

Section 147Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

…ue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in assessee’s own case. In this regard we would like to place reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs Excel Industries 358 ITR 295 wherein the principle of consistency has been reiterated. Hence when the issue has been decided by the Jurisdictional High Court no convincing reason has been pointed to take a different view, any deviation is not permitted. 7.3. Now we come to the case laws relied upon by the ld. CIT(A). As regards the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the…

Royal Information Systems P Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 8(3)(3), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7123/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri Ashwani Taneja (Acountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 69A

…ollect from him whether in one year or the other.” 5 I.T.A. No.7123 /Mum/2014 8. It is further noted by us that Hon’ble Supreme Court has also recently suggested the revenue to take liberal approach in such issues, in the case of CIT vs Excel Industries Ltd 358 ITR 295 (SC) with the following observations: “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 advance licence and the duty entitlement pass book and paid tax thereon. Therefore…